Hr. Ms. De Ruyter en F-16's inzetten voor uitvoering vliegverbod boven Libie?

Het lijkt erop dat de uitvoering van de VN-resolutie gaat gebeuren door een ‘coalitie van bereidwilligen’

en niet door de NAVO en/of EU.

 

Nederland kan hierbij een substantiele bijdrage leveren in de vorm van het fregat Hr.Ms. De Ruyter

en F-16’s. Mocht er een Nederlandse onderzeeboot in de buurt zijn, dan kan deze worden ingezet

voor het vergaren van inlichtingen en als dreiging tegen het uitvaren van Libische marineschepen.

 

Het luchtverdedigings- en commandofregat Hr.Ms. De Ruyter wordt door zijn zusterschip Hr.Ms.Tromp afgelost als leider van de actie Ocean Shield ter bestrijding van piraterij voor de kust van Somalië.

Met zijn moderne radar, luchtverdedigingsraketten en anti-schipraketten, is het schip

uitermate geschikt voor het deelnemen aan de uitvoering van het vliegverbod boven Libie.

 

F-16’s kunnen worden gestationeerd op bondgenootschappelijke bases nabij Libie. De Nederlandse

marine en luchtmacht zijn goed geoefend in het uitvoeren van gezamenlijke acties.


Advertenties

11 thoughts on “Hr. Ms. De Ruyter en F-16's inzetten voor uitvoering vliegverbod boven Libie?

  1. Wat REDELIJKE relativering:
    Libya and the Dilemma of Intervention
    "…there is a worrying dimension to this intervention, in that it reflects a mindset that associates US foreign policy, whether alone or as part of an allied force, with heroic crusades to bring down the bad guys. But it is exactly that mindset that has done so much damage in the Middle East over the years and that has saddled us with the costly burdens of two ongoing wars in Muslim lands. And Washington’s support for military action in Libya, on avowedly humanitarian grounds, should call into question ever more sharply the cynical American acquiescence in brutal suppression of peaceful demonstrations in Bahrain.
    The democratic awakening in the Arab world presents the United States with an opportunity to put that past behind us. It offers us a chance to align our interests with democratic change and economic progress. It would be a tragedy if we allowed the intervention in Libya to distract us from these difficult and important challenges. We need to deal with longstanding allies like Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia—which continue to resist democratic reforms—and to help the Egyptian people consolidate democracy and create jobs and economic opportunity. The most productive role for America in the Middle East today is diplomatic and economic, not military."
    THE NATION, 18-3-2011http://www.thenation.com/article/159330/libya-and-dilemma-intervention

  2. @ Wim Duzijn,
    Dank voor je link naar dit hoofdartikel van de, ook door mij zeer gewaardeerde, The Nation.
    In deze ‘editorial’ worden voor- en nadelen van het instellen van een no-flyzone (NFZ) tegen
    elkaar afgewogen, uitmondend in een oordeel tegen deze maatregel, zoals door jou hierboven aangehaald.
    Hoewel ik altijd een felle tegenstander ben geweest van de Westerse militaire interventies in Irak en Afghanistan, meen ik dat het voorkomen van Kadhafi’s herovering van door de opstandelingen bezette
    gebieden van cruciaal belang is voor het bevorderen van de ‘Arabische lente’.
    Ik licht dit toe door opmerkingen te plaatsen [tussen de regels] van het artikel:Libya and the Dilemma of Interventionhttp://www.thenation.com/print/article/159330/libya-and-dilemma-intervention
    As the democratic awakening sweeps across the Arab world, the Obama administration is struggling to find the right balance between short-term crisis management and the longer-term need for a new approach that breaks with Washington’s dark history of military intervention and support for autocratic regimes. After some initial missteps, the administration was able to strike, more or less, the right balance in the case of Egypt, using its ties with the Egyptian military to help nudge Hosni Mubarak from power without distracting from the historic display of people power in Tahrir Square.
    The latest challenge comes from the deteriorating situation in Libya, where the rapid advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi threatened the defeat of rebel forces. Our natural tendency is to want to help end Qaddafi’s despotic rule and to save the lives of those bravely resisting his onslaught. But it is a difficult challenge to take action that has a reasonable chance of success but that does not arouse popular—and well-founded—suspicions of neoimperial intervention. The catastrophic invasion of Iraq hangs heavy in the Arab world, and Washington’s role in the Middle East is still deeply compromised, with US military aid to repressive regimes like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia now being used to crush peaceful protest and demands for democracy.
    As the violence intensified in March, the White House faced a chorus of voices from respected liberals like Senator John Kerry, as well as from perennial hawks like Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, calling for a no-fly zone. The administration was right to resist those calls in favor of a series of UN Security Council–mandated measures—freezing the regime’s assets, imposing sanctions on Qaddafi and his associates and organizing humanitarian assistance—that fell short of military action. The administration has also opened up contacts with the opposition but has not recognized it or provided arms.
    Finally, as Qaddafi’s forces closed in on Benghazi, and after the Arab League voted in favor of a no-fly zone, the White House on March 17 joined Britain, France and other members of the UN Security Council in passing a Chapter VII resolution authorizing member states "to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" by Qaddafi’s forces "while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."There are strong arguments in favor of the White House decision.
    First, there were legitimate worries that Qaddafi’s forces would carry out massacres after recapturing Benghazi and other rebel-held areas.
    Second, the United States did not lead the charge but acted only after desperate pleas by Libyans under siege and at the urging of Arab League and other multilateral institutions. And Washington has made clear that implementation of the NFZ will have to be genuinely multilateral.
    So far, the White House has acted with caution and respect for international law. And Qaddafi’s declaration of a cease-fire immediately after passage of the resolution gave hope that it might, through intimidation alone, change the balance of forces and lead to the rapid erosion of his support.But there are also many reasons for skepticism, and it is far from certain that the NFZ will not lead to other disasters.
    First, it is not clear that UN forces will be able to avoid civilian casualties. No-fly zones have, at best, a mixed record as a form of humanitarian intervention. Libya may not present the same military challenge as Iraq or Serbia did in the past, but the United States or allies still might have to undertake bombings and cruise missile attacks to suppress Libyan air defenses; no doubt many of these are located in civilian areas. Some civilian casualties therefore seem inevitable.
    Even with Arab League and other regional support, the prospect of civilian casualties from US military action risks turning this into a story of American intervention. Up to now, the democratic awakening has opened up the Arab world’s future because it has been undertaken by the Arab people, who now believe they have control over their own destiny. We should avoid actions that change that narrative.
    Second, even if a no-fly zone can be implemented with minimum civilian casualties, we don’t know if it will save lives or tilt the playing field toward the rebels. Air power does give Qaddafi some advantages, but a no-fly zone might do little to stop his forces from attacking and murdering the opposition using other means if he chooses to ignore or abrogate the cease-fire. And beyond grounding Qaddafi’s air force, the NFZ would not erode his other substantial military advantages; indeed, as the conflict progressed, his tanks, artillery, sea power and better-armed infantry put rebel forces on the defensive.[De VN Resolutie sanctioneert ook het aanvallen vanuit de lucht en vanaf zee van deze superieure middelen van Qadaffi. Zolang deze zich niet in de steden van de opstandelingen bevinden, is dat goed mogelijk – daarom is snelle actie geboden].
    Third, there is a danger that a no-fly zone will distract from other measures that could be just as effective. Financially strangling the regime by cutting off all sources of money from abroad, sharing real-time intelligence with the rebels, working with others to facilitate the flow of assistance to them while stopping the flow of pro-Qaddafi mercenaries into the country, if done in cooperation with the Arab League, all have as much or more promise with less risk than does the far more dramatic gesture of a no-fly zone.[ Ik betwijfel of deze maatregelen net zo effectief zouden zijn]
    Finally, the language of the UN resolution, while it forbids "foreign occupation," is so broadly worded that many argue it amounts to an open-ended declaration of war against Libya. As is usually the case with military action, it’s easy to make the argument for war with Libya and to begin hostilities; it’s impossible to know when or how the conflict will end.[Juist de robuuste taal van de Resolutie maakt het mogelijk om Qadaffi’s militaire opmars naar Benghazi en andere steden af te stoppen. Daarmee is Qadaffi mogelijk nog niet van zijn troon gestoten, maar zijn bewind wordt zo ernstig ondermijnd, dat de diplomatieke sancties meer kans maken om een verandering van regiem mogelijk te maken. Ondertussen is de (potentiele) aanhangers van de Arabische revolte, ook buiten Libie, een hart onder de riem gestoken. Dit zal hopelijk andere Arabische heersers bewegen zich meer open te stellen voor de wensen van hun volken.]
    Indeed, there is a worrying dimension to this intervention, in that it reflects a mindset that associates US foreign policy, whether alone or as part of an allied force, with heroic crusades to bring down the bad guys. But it is exactly that mindset that has done so much damage in the Middle East over the years and that has saddled us with the costly burdens of two ongoing wars in Muslim lands. And Washington’s support for military action in Libya, on avowedly humanitarian grounds, should call into question ever more sharply the cynical American acquiescence in brutal suppression of peaceful demonstrations in Bahrain.
    The democratic awakening in the Arab world presents the United States with an opportunity to put that past behind us. It offers us a chance to align our interests with democratic change and economic progress. It would be a tragedy if we allowed the intervention in Libya to distract us from these difficult and important challenges. We need to deal with longstanding allies like Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia—which continue to resist democratic reforms—and to help the Egyptian people consolidate democracy and create jobs and economic opportunity. The most productive role for America in the Middle East today is diplomatic and economic, not military.

  3. Opeens heeft de Verenigde Naties ontdekt dat Libie een afzichtelijke dictatuur is!
    Of dat niet al lang bekend was. Hoe hypocriet.
    Zie: Libie, mensenrechten en de Verenigde Natieshttp://www.likud.nl/artik050.html

  4. Dit artikel uit "The Nation"is mij uit het hart gegrepen. Helemaal mee eens.
    Laten we niet de no fly zone instellen want daar blijft het niet bij. Daar kan het niet bij blijven. Men zal het zien. Er zullen op een gegeven moment noodgedwongen grondtroepen moeten worden ingezet om ons doel te bereiken, het afzetten van Kadaffi. Madame Clinton zei vandaag dat er geen grondtroepen zullen worden ingezet, maar de tijd zal het leren. De troepen van Kadaffi zitten nu in de stad Benghazi en daar kun je ze niet uitkrijgen met vliegtuigen. Het wordt een complete oorlog op de grond. Met het risico dat na onze overwinning de hele arabische wereld ons beschuldigt van inmenging en neo kolonialisme.
    Beter ware het geweest om onze aandacht te richten op Bahrein en Yemen, daar gebeurt ook veel. Daar kunnen we proberen het in goede banen te leiden.
    Voorts, en dat wordt niet in het artikel van Nation genoemd, Kadaffi is een specialist op het gebied van terrorisme en dus de asymmetrische oorlogvoering. Wanneer er een aanslag in FR of de UK plaatsvindt met 1000 doden, is het volk dan nog zo enthousiast om deze man uit het zadel te lichten ? Ik houd mijn hart vast.

  5. @Likoed Nederland is, als dochtervereniging van de zionistische ‘Groot Israel’ partij Likoed,
    wel de laatste die kan verwijzen naar aanranding van mensenrechten en het in gevaar
    brengen van de vrede en en rechtmatige veiligheid in het wijdere Midden-Oosten.
    DE ZIONISTISCHE GROOT-ISRAEL LOBBY IN NEDERLAND: EEN NOODZAKELIJKE INVENTARISATIEhttp://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/149257
    @nubby nibbitz, ik ben het met u eens dat wij rekening moeten houden met een verhoogd gevaar van terroristische tegen-acties van pro-Kadhafi fanaten. Wij moeten ons realiseren dat wij feitelijk, zo niet ook formeel, in oorlog zijn met (Kadhafi’s) Libie. Reden temeer dat Kadhafi’s bewind, hoe dan ook, zo snel mogelijk moet worden uitgeschakeld.

  6. @Waning
    U heeft even gemist dat Likoed de groot Israel gedachte al lang niet meer aanhangt.
    Geeft niets hoor, kan iedereen gebeuren, vooral mensen met een sterk gekleurde ideologische bril.

  7. @Likoed NederlandLikoed was lange tijd tegen de vorming van een zelfstandige Palestijnse staat maar staat daar tegenwoordig minder negatief tegenover. Likoed streeft in de plaats daarvan een sterkere Palestijnse economie na. Wel stelt zij zich ‘hard’ jegens de Palestijnen op, in die zin dat zij tegen het eenzijdig overdragen van land aan hen is.
    Voorts wil Likoed de Golanhoogten behouden, is zij tegen een deling van Jeruzalem en voor uitbreiding van Israëlische nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever.[1]
    http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likoed

  8. @Likoed Nerderland – graag niet meer zo laf en onbeleefd anoniem reageren – :
    (i) ‘Het aanbod’ deed Netanjahoe als premier, niet als partijleider.
    (2) Uit: Likud – Platform: http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htmSettlements
    The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
    The Partition of the Negev
    Israel rejects out of hand ideas raised by Labor Party leaders concerning the relinquishment of parts of the Negev to the Palestinians. The practical meaning of this plan is that the "Green Line" should no longer be viewed as a "Red Line", which draws us closer to the partition plan of 1947 as it opens the door to the principle that the fate of the Galilee, the Triangle and additional areas within Israel is negotiable. The Likud asserts that such proposals by the Labor Party leadership may literally cause the dismemberment of the State of Israel…
    Self-Rule
    The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
    The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.
    Jerusalem
    Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz. The government firmly rejects attempts of various sources in the world, some anti-Semitic in origin, to question Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s capital, and the 3,000-year-old special connection between the Jewish people and its capital. To ensure this, the government will continue the firm policies it has adopted until now:
    No diplomatic activity will be permitted at Orient House. The government stopped the stream of visits by heads of state and ministers at Orient House, begun under the left-wing government.
    The presence of the Israeli police in eastern Jerusalem will be increased. This in addition to the new police posts and reinforcements in the neighborhoods.
    The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in ‘City of David’.
    The Jordan River as a Permanent Border
    The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.
    Security Areas
    The government succeeded in significantly reducing the extent of territory that the Palestinians expected to receive in the interim arrangement. The government will insist that security areas essential to Israel’s defense, including the western security area and the Jewish settlements, shall remain under Israeli rule.
    The Golan
    Based on the Likud-led government’s proposal, the 10th Knesset passed the law to extend Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration over the Golan Heights, thus establishing Israeli sovereignty over the area. The government will continue to strengthen Jewish settlement on the Golan…

    Uit: Likud in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud..Charter
    The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea, Samaria, and Azzah".[11] Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel".[citation needed]
    The ‘Peace & Security’ chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”[11]
    With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state.[12] "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land."[13]
    In June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace.[14]..

    Uit: ‘A long way to go’ (Matthew Bell, Public radio reporter in the Middle East, September 2, 2010)http://matthewjbell.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/a-long-way-to-go/
    Israel’s prime minister says he’s willing to go a long way to make peace with the Palestinians. If Benjamin Netanyahu is serious, what would that journey look like? The Likud party platform is instructive.On West Bank settlements, the platform of Netanyahu’s party is clear.
    The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

    This last point, about uprooting some settlements, is a potential deal breaker for the two state solution that Team Obama is trying to realize before it’s too late. I think it was George W. Bush who commented about the impossibility of creating a “Swiss cheese” state of disconnected cantons in the West Bank for the Palestinians. During past negotiations, more than one Israeli government has been willing to pull evacuate settlers. But as Yossi Klein Halevi explains, for “the Likud, the settlers are an extension of itself.”
    And then there’s the issue of borders – for Israel – and for a future Palestinian state. In short, the Likud platform says there can’t be a new state in the West Bank…

  9. @van Waning
    Netanjahoe is ook de partijleider.
    En U past een truc toe om te komen met een stokoud verkiezingsprogramma. Mooie desinformatie!

  10. @ ‘Likoed Nederland’
    1. Met wie discussieer ik eigenlijk? Kom eens achter uw anonimiteit vandaan.
    2. Bij al uw voorgaande gedachtewisselingen – met anderen en met mij – over het al dan niet Groot-Israel zionisme van uw moederpartij, heeft u nog nooit een nieuwe versie van haar partijprogramma kunnen produceren.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s