Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Launches 112 Tomahawk Missiles into Libya
The U.S. military attacked Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean.
President Obama, speaking today on Libya. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP) A senior military official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi. That’s the rebel stronghold under attack by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
Complete details were not immediately available, though the Pentagon said 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. and British warships off the Libyan coast.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations.
Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gadhafi, the U.S. kicked off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.
President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi’s continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles at 20 targets.
Obama said military action was not his first choice.
“This is not an outcome US or any of our partners sought,” Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”
A senior military official said the U.S. launched air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.
Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is “deeply aware” of the risks of taking any military action.
At a news conference in Paris, Clinton said Gadhafi had left the world no choice but to intervene urgently and forcefully to protect further loss of civilian life.
“We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities,” she told reporters.
Among the U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean were two guided-missile destroyers, the USS Barry and USS Stout, as well as two amphibious warships, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, and a command-and-control ship, the USS Mount Whitney. The submarine USS Providence was also in the Mediterranean.
175 Comments so far
Show AllAccording to the U.S. Navy Fact File (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2), in 1999 dollars, EACH Tomahawk cruise missile costs $569,000.
110 were fired at targets in a sovereign nation which does NOT threaten us, and with which we were NOT at war until we did this.
Total cost of these missiles fired: $62,590,000 (in 1999 dollars).
How many jobs could have been created with that money?
What about the "fearsome" budget deficit?
Better to defund NPR based on edited video lies and waste more than $62 million on blowing up Libyan targets and killing Libyan soldiers who believe they are defending their country, just as our sailors who fired these missiles believe they are, somehow, defending the U.S.
Congress has NOT declared war on Libya, as required by the Constitution. This is another one of Obama's wars, and shamefully, also a U.N. war.
And corporate media merely describes all this insanity as though it were normal.
The reasons to impeach Obama are growing. But that would require a Congress which obeys the law, a luxury we no longer have.
You're right, ED
The reasons to impeach Obama are growing. But that would require a Congress which obeys the law, a luxury we no longer have.
and a monica...................
RE "a Monica": Even I'd consider sucking his weenie if that guaranteed Obama impeached and convicted of starting illegal war. But it'd never get that far. 'Cause the first I laid eyes on them, I'd kick his balls in.
The reasons to impeach grew with Bush too. It will never happen over issues like these which corporations want. More weapons contracts and cheaper crude prices by cutting out the middle man, Gadhafi. Or Sadam or Chaves or whoever. And what would we have after impeachment anyway? Biden? When you create a power vacuum, all sorts of nasties will be lying in wait to come crawling out of the woodwork. Our problem is not with individuals as much as with a mostly corrupt and incompetent system. And the people will never elect whom they truly want and need as long as money controls the media message and we keep using electronic voting systems were there is no verifiable ballot review or counting methods. And remember in 2000, SCOTUS told us we aren't allowed to count our votes anyway. I don't think uprisings like Egypt will happen here either. You can slaughter innocents around the globe and most Americans won't bat an eye. But cost them some money and the gloves come off. So sad. Blaming this guy or that guy only serves the ruling elites' plans to pit us all against each other rather than unifying us all against them.
Too right. Too true. Sad, sad night.
This is totally undermining (with NATO mines, Raytheon profits) the UN Charter, turning it into a tool for that which the charter was written to protection against.
$63 million? Do you know the U.S. spends at least $600 billion each year on Iraq and Afghanistan? That's $1 compared to $100,000. And it's a one-time cost, compared to an annual cost.
$1 is not a problem, compared to $100,000 thrown down the toilet every year.
$1 is not a problem??? I'm really sorry to say this, but you're an idiot! And your math is as wrong as your premise. To start with, the ratio between 63 million and 600 billion is 1 to 10,000 -- not 1 to 100,000. (Actually 1 to 9,524 to be exact.)
Second, you say "it's a one-time cost, compared to an annual cost." ABSURD! You think that was the end? The truth is, the 63 million was only for the first few minutes of fireworks, with much more to come, compared to your annual cost, and your annual cost is for 2 wars at that.
So to be fair, since the 600 billion is an annual cost, whereas the 63 million for cruise missiles was probably "flushed down the toilet" in less than hour -- lets divide the 10,000 by 365 days and then 24 hrs.
Guess what. On an hour to hour basis the ratio is now 1 to 1 -- and that is without ever considering the cost of the battleships, aircraft carriers, support vessels, AWACS, refueling tankers, and other support aircraft, and on and on and on... AND more than anything else -- the human costs.
I think you might be more comfortable down at Starbucks discussing this with all of the other faux-progressives over a cup of 'free trade' coffee.
You're right, it's one in 10,000. The missiles used in Libya cost 10,000 times less than what the U.S. has been throwing down the toilet every year for the last eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing innocent people in a naked power grab. We wouldn't want to spend even $1 of those $10,000 to save the lives of people who are actively trying to overthrow an insane dictator. That would be sheer idiocy.
I suppose you would have also saved a dollar in Egypt if Mubarek had begun killing the people in Tahrir Square.
The new puppet dictator in obedience to the West is what the sheeple don't get. This is exactly what is going on here. Chris Floyd writes that this could be a way of
"neutralizing" the unrest in the region -- take the fight out of the people -- and I agree with that. "Mubarak is not a dictator" -- Biden. "I consider Mubarak a family friend" -- Clinton. Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi are cruel loonies that decided not to play nice with the west. As I've said elsewhere, they are our "marquee dictators."
This is not about saving the people of Libya. The people of Libya, like the people in Afghanistan and Iraq are now caught smack in the middle of firepower from the so-called "good" guys (hey, innocent person, we wiped out your whole family so we could save you) and the friends of lunatic Gaddafi on the other. Looks like a no-win situation to me.
Your vision is poor.
And you are BLIND!!!
Mubarek thugs DID attack and kill people in Tahrir Square. Where were you? And they were UNARMED protesters. Qaddafi has been facing an ARMED revolution instigated and support by outside interests. A completely different situation.
And this is NOT about Qaddafi anyway -- it is about US! I don't know of one person on this site who defends Qaddafi.
Talking about Egypt, the US did not speak out against their puppet Mubarek until it was obvious the protesters were going to force him out, and then when he named his 'torturer-in-chief' as successor, we accepted that too.
Don't you find it the least bit curious that we don't care about innocent civilians anywhere in the world except where there is oil or pipelines? No need to list them all -- others already have.
My country has lied to me about every single military action we have been involved in since Viet Nam, but you just don't get it. You are either very young or completely brainwashed by the mainstream media.
I also find it interesting that only error in your original post that you admitted was the one you could not possibly deny. That says something else about your maturity.
You have dodged the question (and every other point in my post): I suppose you would have also saved a dollar in Egypt if Mubarek had begun killing the people in Tahrir Square.
Would you have allowed Mubarek to slaughter every protester in Tahrir Square?
You say the Libyan "revolution [is] instigated and support[ed] by outside interests." That's what Gaddafi says. Besides him, do you have any source for that claim? You sure sound like someone who defends Gaddafi.
I dodged nothing! I answered your question in my very first line. "Mubarek thugs DID attack and kill people in Tahrir Square." That makes the question you posit a non sequitur.
Regardless, it is folly to attempt reasoned dialog with someone incapable of thinking beyond hypotheticals. Bye!
Would you have allowed Mubarek to slaughter every protester in Tahrir Square?
Answer: refuse to answer
What evidence do you have for your claim that the Libyan "revolution [is] instigated and support[ed] by outside interests."
Answer: none
Naturally, what on earth are you thinking? The US begins its third (fourth, counting Pakistan) war and you say no big deal, we only spent 63 million on missiles? Just remember that's 63 million in the first few hours of our new war. As I recall, Wolfowitz predicted the Iraq business would only be 200 Billion, and we'd recover that by selling Iraqi oil!! Really, don't think of how much the invoiced cost of those missiles was, rather, think of how much it cost to make it possible for us to launch those missiles.
And how appropriate, start a new war on the anniversary of the beginnings of an earlier, perpetual war.
As to the cost, the ships, planes and troops were not in mothballs somewhere, they were already at sea, in service and on payroll. Besides the cost of the missiles themselves there was little except the fuel to move the ships and planes.
The circumstances in Libya are nearly the opposite of those in Iraq and Afghanistan, so comparisons are misleading. Libyan protesters calling for democracy and an end to Gadhafi's dictatorship were being slaughtered, and were pleading for international intervention. This was a humanitarian emergency, more similar to Japan's current crisis than to the U.S. imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under the circumstances, taking out Gadhafi's air defense systems and preventing a genocide is both sound and moral. Since his power is almost all monetary, military and mercenary, and a large majority of Libyans oppose him (including many in his military), this intervention may bring a quick end to Gadhafi and allow a new democracy to take root, similar to what is happening in Egypt and Tunisia.
I was surprised that it took 112 cruise missiles to take out 20 air defense sites (aren't they supposed to be accurate)? And, I would be upset if the coalition destroys any civilian infrastructure, builds any fortress embassies or tries to install a puppet government. But, so far there is no indication of any such thing.
So, your argument is that since the U.S. is doing the wrong thing in Saudi Arabia it should not do the right thing in any country? The perfect is the enemy of the good?
As to the concept of "selective involvement," if selective involvement was wrong then the U.S. would have to abstain from assisting Japan in their current humanitarian emergency.
I say you can't turn the ship around on a dime, but you do have to make the best course corrections that you can.
Are you opposed to the "capitalist" U.S. offering assistance in Japan? Or does the U.S. cease to be capitalist, depending on the type of humanitarian emergency it responds to?
Your argument is illogical. Docking the ship would mean no assistance for Japan, or Haiti, or Indonesia, or Kosovo. Would you prefer the U.S. always do nothing?
It is rather emotional as to what is happening to this country. The only way to explain what is happening is to assume that indeed there is a power elite and that this power elite want to install a "fractional-reserve-banking-income-tax-central-bank" system in every country. Probably Kaddhafi would not fully comply so they are going to place a puppet dictator what will comply. This is not about a brutal dictator. It is about something that kaddhafi has that they want. I think that everyone by know should be figure out that the president is not at the helm. He is just there receiving directions from the power elite.
The Permanent Members of the Security Council can just roll over the rest of the UN in these situations. It is a war based on the total corruption of the UN Charter, not a UN war.
Sadly no need for a declaration of War against Libya as the War on Terror legislation is so damned loose that it can be made to pre-authorize bombing Libya for whatever reason anybody would care to make up.
Wiki says the current price / missile is better than $750,000 brining the cost to more than $84,000,000. $84,000,000 gone in one day, nothing to show for it but destruction.
“We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.” Said Obama. We seem to be quite happy to stand idly by with what is happening in Bahrain and Yemen. I guess it all depends which tyrant you are talking about.
Obama is just fine with Scott Walker's show of no mercy for union members.
That's the "two wrongs make a right" argument.
And, "nothing to show for it?" How about the hundreds (or thousands) of lives saved in Benghazi in the last two days? How about the dreams of millions of Libyans who want the democracy they see taking root in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia?
In 1999, I thought 1999 dollars were great, but not so much any more.
In 2011 dollars, each missile costs about a million. So we just blew off roughly $110,000,000.
Not a problem, we didn't have anything we could have used that money on at home.
Isn't it odd that we have no money or alleged interest in human rights when it comes to our puppet states in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.
I feel 100% the same way. This is just insanity. We have a huge debt and we're racking it bombing a country and taking sides in a civil war between tribes? like this is intelligent.
Who makes tomahawk missiles? they are the ones making money.
Will there be any Tomahawks to be used against the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrain who at this moment are slaughtering Civilians?
Obama you are a lying hypocrite.
you forgot syria..............
Syria is actually a country that the west would be happy to fire Tomahawks at.
What? And lose access to a wonderful place to torture... oops, I mean 'aggressively interrogate' for the CIA?
some oppressed peoples are more equal than others,
GwNorth, YES. there will be plenty of Tomahawks, B2s, Subs, Carriers, etc ---- because ---- 'if they (the MIC) build them, it will come' (global war that is).
Here's the plan, GW:
It certainly appears to me that this entire Libya war plan is based on Tom Barnett's 2004 explosive and heavily studied book (by the MIC/CIA) "The Pentagon's New Map" --- in which the entire swath of countries he calls the "GAP" are to be absorbed into the "OLD CORE" (which is the Western empire), and to be prevented from falling under the influence of the "NEW CORE" (easy to guess -- BRIC).
The geo-strategic plan is an up-dated version of the 1990's PNAC plan that precipitated the Iraq and Afpak wars --- but now expanding to include N. Africa, all Middle East, and South West Central Asia.
This is a MUCH bigger and more carefully planned global war map for the current global Empire (politely called the "CORE") to engage in during the 2011 to 2020 time-frame.
Anyone who does not include in their research and analysis Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" is woefully underestimating the breadth, depth, and scope of this plan to expand from Iraq and Afpak wars to the full "GAP" (from Tunisia through Libya, Egypt, the whole Middle East, and all the way to the Chinese and Indian boarders).
As Cheney was infamous for saying, this is "BIG TIME" for the global Empire --- and must be stopped before it precipitates WWIII.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty over violent empire -- People's Party
Old Core/New Core???
Sounds like Oceania and East Asia.
I was just going to bring up the same point. "Oceania has always been at war with...," the Ministry of Truth will fill in the blanks. The Ministry of Love will take care of anybody who disagrees.
Barack Obama: G.W. Bush's Third Term of Office
Continuing military presence in Iraq? Check!
Continuing military presence in Afghanistan? Check!
Continued detention of "terrorist suspects" at Gitmo? Check!
Continued support for & expansion of Patriot Act? Check!
Expanding combat operations in more Islamic nations? Check!
Continuing given banks billions of dollars? Check!
Let the federal reserve and private bankl to continue abusing the economy? Check!
Continuing high unemployment? Check!
Continuing rampant foreclosures by banks? Check!
Nothing has change, except that now you can see that there is someone else at the helm. You actually think that Obama was really motivated about healthcare all by himself?
Nobel "Peace Prize" winner..... Feh!
It is time to impeach Obama and stop our Presidents from "authorizing military actions".
Obama said military action was not his first choice.
his first choice was to play golf..................
G.W. Bush played golf too. Could there be a connection..............
mordecai shiblikov would have the answer i'm sure...............
"Could there be a connection"?
Golf attracts fascists?
Or Sado-Masochists who love to hit their balls with metal sticks?
... And when he finished golf, he went home to polish his Nobel Peace Prize.
Irradiated food and water, homeless people freezing in the snow, Japan a shambles.
Obama says, "Darn, Japan, we were going to help, but now we've got to bomb Libya and that's expensive. We'll get back to you on this."
Talk about "The Ugly American."
Especially since the U.S. government has been running for a long time on money borrowed from, among other places, Japan.
Every good war's gotta have a good slogan. In case you hadn't heard, this one's is 'Operation Odyssey Dawn.'
I'm trying to combine it in a sentence along with words like 'unspeakable atrocities' to explain both the urgent need of a humanitarian mission and the urgent need to keep people like Bradley Manning in chains. I wish I were a PR person.
'Operation Odyssey Dawn', indeed. - Well, that may be very fitting. The whole of Homer's Odyssey is about human hubris, with Odysseus finally learning not to evince hubris.
"Every good war's gotta have a good slogan."
Why does the US always have to give stupid names to every one of their aggressions?
Instead of using using cutesy names, why don't we us something descriptive, like "Operation We're Going To Murder Your Women And Children And Steal All Of Your Oil"
I live at the foot of Kearsarge Peak and Mt. Whitney is 15 miles south of here. I don't support war as a means of settling international disputes. Who knows where this is going to lead?
By the way, the mountain near here is named after a Navy warship, the Kearsarge, from the Civil War.
Raytheon will be so happy