NATOSource is proudly sponsored by EADS North America

New Atlanticist
National Interests
- Afghanistan
- Albania
- Armenia
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Brazil
- Britain
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- Chad
- China
- Congo (DRC)
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Georgia
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kosovo
- Kyrgyzstan
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Libya
- Macedonia
- Malta
- Montenegro
- Morocco
- Netherlands
- North Korea
- Norway
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Saudi Arabia
- Serbia
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Somalia
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Spain
- Sudan
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Taiwan (ROC)
- Tajikistan
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- U.A.E.
- U.S.
- Ukraine
- Uzbekistan
- Yemen
Is NATO's intervention in Libya a model for future wars?
Jorge Benitez | October 24, 2011From Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, the New York Times: The United States military has spent just $1.1 billion in Libya, and in the words of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., “didn’t lose a single life.” He added that “this is more of the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has been in the past.”
Libya proved that the leaders of some medium-size powers can be overthrown from a distance, without putting American boots on the ground, by using weapons fired from sea and air with the heaviest load carried by partner nations — in the case of Libya, European allies and even some Arab states. . . .
Senior military officials noted that in Libya, NATO missions were under way just 10 days after the alliance decided to move forward — compared to the 11 months it took to move from a United Nations resolution to the first airplane enforcing a no-fly zone over Kosovo in the 1990s.
“NATO works, and it can work at speed,” said Adm. James G. Stavridis, the alliance’s senior military commander. “The difference is that 10 years of integrated operations in Afghanistan have created an alliance that can move quickly, can move with alacrity — not without controversy, not without some nations moving faster and some moving slower and some saying we are not going to participate in this operation.”
But American and alliance officials acknowledged that a stinging critique, issued this summer by Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary at the time, still echoed. He warned of a two-tiered alliance in which some allies could fight, and some really could not. . . .
The shortages in the proper equipment, military skills and political commitment that Mr. Gates underscored are, indeed, considered a warning to the alliance. NATO does not have a roster of experienced officers to do its own targeting — the essence of successful air warfare. Only the United States, Britain and France have targeteers up to modern standards.
With no troops on the ground to help spot targets, NATO planners and pilots had to improvise with other reconnaissance equipment and informants on the ground. Still, commanders acknowledged that they often could not pinpoint the shifting battle lines in hotly contested cities. . . .
For command bunkers in Tripoli as well as Colonel Qaddafi’s final hide-out in Surt, NATO increasingly relied on American Predator drones that fly high overhead for hundreds of hours, chronicling the “pattern of life” below until allied commanders feel confident the site is a legitimate target. On Thursday, for instance, a Predator helped to guide a French warplane to attack Colonel Qaddafi’s convoy as it tried to flee Surt. (NATO said Thursday it did not know Colonel Qaddafi was in the convoy then.) . . .
For the record, non-American alliance and partner aircraft flew 75 percent of all sorties of the war. And non-American alliance warships carried out 100 percent of the missions to enforce the arms embargo at sea. (photo: AP)
NATOSource

The daily news of the world's most powerful alliance.
The views expressed in NATOSource are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.
Follow on Twitter: @NATOSource
"I am an enormous fan of NATOSource. I use it virtually every day, because it provides a wide variety of views, a solid base of factual knowledge, and keeps me in touch with the world of NATO."
Admiral James Stavridis, (Ret,), former SACEUR

(Graphics: Deutsche Welle and Reuters)
Most Popular NATOSource Posts
Key Issues
- Alliance Unity
- Allied Command Operations
- Allied Command Transformation
- Article 5
- Burden Sharing
- Capabilities Gap
- Chicago Summit
- Congress
- CSTO
- Cyber Threats
- Defense Spending
- Energy Security
- EU
- High North
- Intelligence
- ISAF
- Missile Defense
- NATO Defense Ministerials
- NATO Exercises
- NATO Ministerials
- NATO Operations
- NATO Partnerships
- NATO Response Force
- Nuclear Weapons
- OSCE
- Piracy
- R2P
- SACEUR
- SACT
- Secretary General
- Smart Defense
- Special Forces
- Strategic Concept
- Terrorism
- Transatlantic Relations
- United Nations
- Weapon Systems
TransAtlantic Links
Media Links
- Associated Press
- Baltic Times
- Brussels blog
- Deutsche Welle
- Economist
- EU Observer
- European Voice
- Financial Times
- Guardian
- Hurriyet Daily News
- International Herald Tribune
- Kathimerini
- Kyiv Post
- Le Monde Diplomatique
- Moscow Times
- New York Times
- Newsweek
- Prague Daily Monitor
- Radio Free Europe
- Reuters
- Ria Novosti
- Russia Today
- Slovak Spectator
- Spiegel
- St. Petersburg Times
- Sur
- Telegraph
- Times (London)
- Today's Zaman
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
- Xinhua
- American Enterprise Institute (AEI), United States
- Aspen Institute, United States
- Atlantic Council, United States
- Brookings Institution, United States
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, United States
- Cato Institute, United States
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS), United States
- Center for International Relations (CIR), Poland
- Center for Security Studies (CSS), Switzerland
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), United States
- Center for Transatlantic Relations, United States
- Cicero Foundation, Netherlands
- Council on Foreign Relations, United States
- Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), Denmark
- EU Institute for Security Studies, France
- European Council on Foreign Relations, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Spain, UK
- European Institute, United States
- Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), France
- French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), France
- Fundacion para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociale (FAES), Spain
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Germany
- German Marshall Fund of the United States, United States
- Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (GEES), Spain
- Heritage Foundation, United States
- Hoover Institution, United States
- Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), France
- Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), United States
- Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Germany
- Instituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Italy
- International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), United Kingdom
- Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Germany
- Lemnitzer Center, United States
- Marshall Center, Germany
- NATO Defense College
- Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), Netherlands
- Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Norway
- RAND, United States
- Real Instituto Elcano, Spain
- Ridgway Center, United States
- Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), United Kingdom
- Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), United Kingdom
- Schuman Center (RSCAS), Italy
- Security & Defence Agenda (SDA), Belgium
- Strategy International (SI), Greece
- U.S. Institute of Peace, United States
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, United States

