danivon wrote:France was taking the lead from early on, Steve. Not exactly news. And it was always clear that Gadaffi would either need to leave or win for it to be over.

The French defence minister has suggested a new UN Security Council resolution may be needed for Nato allies to achieve their goals in Libya.

Gerard Longuet was speaking after a joint letter by the US, UK and French leaders said there could be no peace while Col Muammar Gaddafi was in power.

The current UN resolution makes no mention of regime change.

Luckily, Qatar have been breaking the UN arms embargo and supplying French-made anti-tank weapons to the rebels. Easy to train on, apparently.

Also, England and France are complaining about unnamed NATO powers not pulling their weight. Most observers think they are talking about us.

Ray Jay wrote:Steve:

Also, England and France are complaining about unnamed NATO powers not pulling their weight. Most observers think they are talking about us.

I though they were talking about Italy, Norway, and other European powers. Are you sure it is about the US?

Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, admitted yesterday that the withdrawal of US aircraft from Libyan skies was hurting the operation. "Let's be realistic. The fact that the US has left the kinetic part of the air operation has had a sizeable impact. That is fairly obvious," Mr Bilt said.. . .

NATO was forced to defend its strategy in Libya yesterday after France and Britain called on allies to pull their weight. William Hague urged NATO to step up its efforts in Libya. Speaking in Luxembourg, the British Foreign Secretary said: "We must maintain and intensify our efforts in NATO. That is why the United Kingdom has in the last weeks supplied additional aircraft capable of striking ground targets threatening the civilian population. Of course, it will be welcome if other countries do the same; there is always more to do."

Gerard Longuet, the French Defence Minister, went further in parliament in Paris, telling colleagues that Britain and France had no support on the ground, meaning there was "no chance of breaking the siege of towns like Misratah or Zentan". A NATO general rejected the criticism and said the alliance was performing well and protecting civilians.

Dutch Brigadier General Mark Van Uhm said the alliance was successful in enforcing an arms embargo, patrolling a no-fly zone and protecting civilians.

"I think with the assets we have, we're doing a great job," he said.

France and Britain urged their NATO allies on Tuesday to do more to pressure Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, with Paris chiding Germany for a lackluster effort and lamenting the limited U.S. military role. . .

French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet deplored that France and Britain carried "the brunt of the burden." He complained that the reduced U.S. role _ American forces are now in support, not combat roles in the airstrike campaign _ have made it impossible "to loosen the noose around Misrata," which has become a symbol of the resistance against Gadhafi.

Longuet also criticized Germany, which is not taking part in the military operation, and said Berlin's commitment to back the humanitarian effort for Libyans was "a second chance" at best.

France's frustration with the stalemate on the ground, where Libyan rebels have struggled to capitalize on Western air attacks, has been echoed in several Western capitals.

Germany does not take part in NATO's military airstrikes in Libya because it sees the operation as too risky. Italy has also been reluctant to get involved in the airstrikes because, as Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has noted, it was the North African nation's colonial ruler.

And the reduced U.S. role since NATO took over command on March 31 has also affected the operation.

"Let's be realistic. The fact that the U.S. has left the sort of the kenetic part of the air operation has had a sizable impact. That is fairly obvious," said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.

Doctor Fate wrote:So, it's no longer simply humanitarian, which was the fig leaf for this action in the first place.

Also, England and France are complaining about unnamed NATO powers not pulling their weight. Most observers think they are talking about us.

Good to have someone willing to break the UN's iron grip, right? When we like it.

It's great that once and future terrorists are getting our help.

rickyp wrote:If the nature of war fare has changed the munitions requirements why havn't the militaries prepared themselves?

GMTom wrote:So let me get this straight,
France is complaining about an ally not pulling her weight?
The US is to be criticized for only doing "so much" as opposed to the French doing not just NOTHING in Iraq but also breaking embargoes? Who is France to complain?

If the question is one of supply, i.e. F/B are actually running out of the missiles, then that says something serious about what paper tigers two supposed world powers are militarily. One would have to ask why the are so thin on actual supply? Is it due to an over reliance on a foreign power to provide for their defense and military muscle?

Either way, I think it offers an example of something Americans have been saying for a while. That Europe affords it's welfare state on the backs of the American military.