Egypt's el-Sissi wants a UN-backed coalition on Libya

[webfact]

Egypt's el-Sissi wants a UN-backed coalition on Libya
By HAMZA HENDAWI

CAIRO (AP) — Egypt's president said in a radio interview aired on Tuesday that creating a U.N.-backed coalition was the best course of action to rid Libya of Islamic extremists.

Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, speaking to France's Europe 1 Radio, said Egyptian airstrikes against Islamic State group positions in Libya on Monday were in self-defense.

The airstrikes were in retaliation for the mass beheading on a beach of a group of Egyptian Coptic Christians. A video of the killings was release late Sunday by a faction calling itself the Tripoli Province of the Islamic State group.

"We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children," he said. Asked whether he wanted to see a U.N.-backed coalition for Libya, he said: "I think there is no choice." He added that any intervention to restore security in Libya should be done with the consent of the country's people and government.

"We have abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners of the militias ... The militias have to give up their arms and must work in a civil context. We have to disarm and prevent arms from falling into the hands of extremists," el-Sissi, a general-turned-politician, told the French station in his first public comments after his country's U.S.-made F-16s staged at least two rounds of airstrikes in Libya on Monday.

"What happened is a crime, a monstrous terrorist crime that our children have their throats cuts in Libya and not to react. It's a kind of self-defense accepted by the international community. We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children," he said.

The Egyptian attacks drew harsh criticism from Omar al-Hassi, the militia-supported prime minister in the capital, Tripoli. Libya's elected and internationally recognized parliament and government were forced to convene outside Tripoli when the capital was overrun by Islamic and tribal militias last year. An older parliament, supported by the militias, declared itself legitimate and formed a rival government with al-Hassi at the head.

"This treacherous aggression and the terrorism carried out by the Egyptian air force is a violation of Libyan sovereignty and a scandalous violation of the U.N. charter and international law," said al-Hassi, who accused the Egyptians of attacking Libya "without any solid proof" that they were actually striking the militants responsible for killing the Egyptian Christians.

El-Sissi spoke with France's president and Italy's prime minister about Libya on Monday, and sent his foreign minister, Sameh Shukri, to New York to consult at the United Nations ahead of a terrorism conference opening Wednesday in Washington.

At the United Nations in New York, the Security Council prepared to meet in emergency session Wednesday, as permanent council members expressed initial support for a resolution on a response to Libya's crisis.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry laid out Egypt's proposals for a resolution: Lift international restrictions on arms to Libya's "legitimate government" so it can defend itself, tighten restrictions on the flow of weapons and money to terrorist groups in Libya, support a peaceful political process toward the country's stability and end the occupation of Tripoli by militants. Militants should disband and disarm, he added.

France, a lead player in the campaign to oust Libya's dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, has campaigned for months for some kind of international action in Libya, and announced a deal Monday to sell 24 advanced fighter jets to Egypt. French troops are already in place near Libya's southern border in Niger as part of a counterterrorism force.

French President Francois Hollande's office said he and el-Sissi both "stressed the importance of the Security Council meetings and that the international community takes new measures to confront this danger."

Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti, meanwhile, said in an interview published Sunday in the Il Messaggero daily that her country is ready "for geographic, economic and historic reasons" to lead a coalition of European and North African countries to stop the militants' advance in a country less than 500 miles (800 kilometers) from Italy's southern tip.

A NATO official who spoke on condition of anonymity in keeping with NATO practice said, "there is no discussion within NATO on taking military action in Libya."

The official added that NATO stands ready, "to support Libya with advice on defense and security institution-building."

In a separate development, flights between Morocco and Libya have been suspended because of what Rabat said was poor security measures at Libyan airports.

A joint statement from Morocco's Interior and Transportation ministries Monday night said the suspension included flights by Libyan airplanes through Moroccan airspace. Moroccan citizens in Libya hoping to return home would have to pass through neighboring countries, added the statement.

Libya's neighbor Tunisia also announced Monday it was reinforcing security at its borders.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-18

[NeverSure]

He wants a UN backed group.

How about a Muslim group of say, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others?

Those bastards are in your front yard and part of your group so how about you handle it?

[Ulysses G.]

Agreed and it should be a war against Islamic extremists everywhere, not just in Libya.

[Credo]

It really makes very little difference what is done. It will probably fail and when it does it will be the fault of the US. If it succeeds the silence will be deafening.

[MobileContent]

Egypt's Sissi? He came to power with a coup and gunned down hundreds of demonstrators and now he wants to invade with a UN mandate Libya ?

[Steely Dan]

Egypt's Sissi? He came to power with a coup and gunned down hundreds of demonstrators and now he wants to invade with a UN mandate Libya ?

Yes, but democracy is only as good as the group who wins an election allows it to be. The deposing of the democratically elected Muslim brotherhood was not a retrograde step. As for a UN mandate, well that club is no way a shining beacon of human rights, indeed the OIC forms a large voting block within the UN that has scarcely a democracy between them.

What I would really like to see is the OIC taking action, but the tricky reality is that it may itself be a Caliphate in waiting, hence the appeal to the UN.

[JockPieandBeans]

Egypt's Sissi? He came to power with a coup and gunned down hundreds of demonstrators and now he wants to invade with a UN mandate Libya ?

Yes, but democracy is only as good as the group who wins an election allows it to be. The deposing of the democratically elected Muslim brotherhood was not a retrograde step. As for a UN mandate, well that club is no way a shining beacon of human rights, indeed the OIC forms a large voting block within the UN that has scarcely a democracy between them.

What I would really like to see is the OIC taking action, but the tricky reality is that it may itself be a Caliphate in waiting, hence the appeal to the UN.

To quote a famous Scotsman.

' Squeaky bum time ' in many parts of the Arab world.

[englishoak]

Ahhh come on, we know Libya has been left to deteriorate into the mess its become.

Everyone has known since day one Libya would become a basket case and need further intervention if left to it.

Mission accomplished ...........Besides Haliburton needs some new rebuild contracts.

[Mosha]

I think it's a global plot to screw Europe. I mean look where most of the "refugees" using Libya are headed.

[cookee68]

He wants a UN backed group.

How about a Muslim group of say, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others?

Those bastards are in your front yard and part of your group so how about you handle it?

So very true, more of them should be pointing out the way, instead of pretending it is not there

[Srikcir]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Egypt's Sissi? He came to power with a coup and gunned down hundreds of demonstrators and now he wants to invade with a UN mandate Libya ?

You missed the part that he resigned his military commission and was elected president in open elections. Unlike Gen. Prayuth who essentially apointed himself PM for as long as he choses.

[Morch]

He wants a UN backed group.

How about a Muslim group of say, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others?

Those bastards are in your front yard and part of your group so how about you handle it?

Libya is pretty on Europe's doorstep, more relevant than Syria or Iraq.

Other than Egypt, other neighboring countries are not very capable when it comes to carrying out military operations on this scale, not do they possess adequate economic or military resources.

Iran's only foothold in the area is Sudan - a bit removed from the main action and anyway, not very likely that an Iranian deployment would be either forthcoming or welcomed by neighboring countries. Iran's contribution, even if it goes unacknowledged, would be more relevant to the Iraqi front.

Saudi Arabia effectively props up the Egyptian economy as it is, but of course, could be doing more both financially and militarily. Then again, they ain't doing much on closer fronts, so not much hope they would get involved with Libya.

Jordan can barely handle its domestic situation and carry out some attacks in Syria and Iraq. Not a realistic candidate for involvement in Libya.

Turkey....well yeah, Turkey been doing very little and less in terms of military support, although it's pretty capable. On the other hand, Turkey hosts about 2 million refugees - not something to overlook.

Mostly, Arab countries are very reluctant to be seen by other Arab countries as waging open war against a fellow Arab country. And then there are all their intricate alliances and hostilities which make joint action even more complicated.

Bottom line is that unlike the Syria-Iraq front, there are no viable military Arab forces (other than Egypt) who can tackle things in Libya, and being much closer to Europe makes the international proposition more likely to become a reality.

[simple1]

He wants a UN backed group.

How about a Muslim group of say, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others?

Those bastards are in your front yard and part of your group so how about you handle it?

Libya is pretty on Europe's doorstep, more relevant than Syria or Iraq.

Other than Egypt, other neighboring countries are not very capable when it comes to carrying out military operations on this scale, not do they possess adequate economic or military resources.

Iran's only foothold in the area is Sudan - a bit removed from the main action and anyway, not very likely that an Iranian deployment would be either forthcoming or welcomed by neighboring countries. Iran's contribution, even if it goes unacknowledged, would be more relevant to the Iraqi front.

Saudi Arabia effectively props up the Egyptian economy as it is, but of course, could be doing more both financially and militarily. Then again, they ain't doing much on closer fronts, so not much hope they would get involved with Libya.

Jordan can barely handle its domestic situation and carry out some attacks in Syria and Iraq. Not a realistic candidate for involvement in Libya.

Turkey....well yeah, Turkey been doing very little and less in terms of military support, although it's pretty capable. On the other hand, Turkey hosts about 2 million refugees - not something to overlook.

Mostly, Arab countries are very reluctant to be seen by other Arab countries as waging open war against a fellow Arab country. And then there are all their intricate alliances and hostilities which make joint action even more complicated.

Bottom line is that unlike the Syria-Iraq front, there are no viable military Arab forces (other than Egypt) who can tackle things in Libya, and being much closer to Europe makes the international proposition more likely to become a reality.

IMO your usual on target analysis. However, why would el Sissi make a public appeal to the UN as it's very unlikely to ever get any traction with the Security Council

[simple1]

He wants a UN backed group.

How about a Muslim group of say, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others?

Those bastards are in your front yard and part of your group so how about you handle it?

Libya is pretty on Europe's doorstep, more relevant than Syria or Iraq.

Other than Egypt, other neighboring countries are not very capable when it comes to carrying out military operations on this scale, not do they possess adequate economic or military resources.

Iran's only foothold in the area is Sudan - a bit removed from the main action and anyway, not very likely that an Iranian deployment would be either forthcoming or welcomed by neighboring countries. Iran's contribution, even if it goes unacknowledged, would be more relevant to the Iraqi front.

Saudi Arabia effectively props up the Egyptian economy as it is, but of course, could be doing more both financially and militarily. Then again, they ain't doing much on closer fronts, so not much hope they would get involved with Libya.

Jordan can barely handle its domestic situation and carry out some attacks in Syria and Iraq. Not a realistic candidate for involvement in Libya.

Turkey....well yeah, Turkey been doing very little and less in terms of military support, although it's pretty capable. On the other hand, Turkey hosts about 2 million refugees - not something to overlook.

Mostly, Arab countries are very reluctant to be seen by other Arab countries as waging open war against a fellow Arab country. And then there are all their intricate alliances and hostilities which make joint action even more complicated.

Bottom line is that unlike the Syria-Iraq front, there are no viable military Arab forces (other than Egypt) who can tackle things in Libya, and being much closer to Europe makes the international proposition more likely to become a reality.

IMO your usual on target analysis.

As far as I'm aware Libya has desended into a proxy war with protagonists supporting either of the two factional governments. A bit more reading for anyone who's interested...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wearing-blinders-in-libya/2015/02/17/b8fbaadc-b6cc-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html

[Steely Dan]

It's all very well trying to contain and degrade ISIS in a war of attrition, whilst sociologists try to figure out what to do. The trouble is quantifying the effectiveness of such a piecemeal strategy. Meanwhile Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joinning forces. If Libya falls the whole of Southern Europe is within striking range.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/libya-al-thani-terrorists-towards-tunisian-border_9032af27-2287-4243-92d7-c4a8189ca569.html

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/isis-wants-to-use-libya-as-gateway-to-south-europe_5a5760d2-af3b-4fd1-b630-1f78c31904fd.html

To add my two pennies worth, a containment strategy is all very well, but ISIS may find opening up new theaters of operation is a potent recruiting tool, especially if there is the prospect of attacking Europe directly and the Western civilization so many detest. I think the dangers of such an approach are greatly understated.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Morch]

He wants a UN backed group.

How about a Muslim group of say, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and others?

Those bastards are in your front yard and part of your group so how about you handle it?

Libya is pretty on Europe's doorstep, more relevant than Syria or Iraq.

Other than Egypt, other neighboring countries are not very capable when it comes to carrying out military operations on this scale, not do they possess adequate economic or military resources.

Iran's only foothold in the area is Sudan - a bit removed from the main action and anyway, not very likely that an Iranian deployment would be either forthcoming or welcomed by neighboring countries. Iran's contribution, even if it goes unacknowledged, would be more relevant to the Iraqi front.

Saudi Arabia effectively props up the Egyptian economy as it is, but of course, could be doing more both financially and militarily. Then again, they ain't doing much on closer fronts, so not much hope they would get involved with Libya.

Jordan can barely handle its domestic situation and carry out some attacks in Syria and Iraq. Not a realistic candidate for involvement in Libya.

Turkey....well yeah, Turkey been doing very little and less in terms of military support, although it's pretty capable. On the other hand, Turkey hosts about 2 million refugees - not something to overlook.

Mostly, Arab countries are very reluctant to be seen by other Arab countries as waging open war against a fellow Arab country. And then there are all their intricate alliances and hostilities which make joint action even more complicated.

Bottom line is that unlike the Syria-Iraq front, there are no viable military Arab forces (other than Egypt) who can tackle things in Libya, and being much closer to Europe makes the international proposition more likely to become a reality.

IMO your usual on target analysis. However, why would el Sissi make a public appeal to the UN as it's very unlikely to ever get any traction with the Security Council

As long as the notion that Libya is still a real proposition holds, Egypt will be reluctant to be seen as a sole aggressor against a fellow Arab country. Officially asserting that Libya (in its former version) is no more, could be seen as tantamount to aggression (or as paving the ground for future aggression), and might lead to further rapid disintegration of Libya, which would be bad for Egypt's security. Therefore, calling for international action, whatever the chances of this cause being taken up, is a cautious way of expressing that that Egypt does not aim to control Libya or somesuch.

Other than that, Egypt does not actually have the capabilities and resources to handle this solo. So even if only financial and military support are gained, its still a result. The UNSC might not approve, but there are enough interested parties (Italy, France) that a less than fully UNSC sanctioned action could be initiated.

[Morch]

It's all very well trying to contain and degrade ISIS in a war of attrition, whilst sociologists try to figure out what to do. The trouble is quantifying the effectiveness of such a piecemeal strategy. Meanwhile Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joinning forces. If Libya falls the whole of Southern Europe is within striking range.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/libya-al-thani-terrorists-towards-tunisian-border_9032af27-2287-4243-92d7-c4a8189ca569.html

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/isis-wants-to-use-libya-as-gateway-to-south-europe_5a5760d2-af3b-4fd1-b630-1f78c31904fd.html

To add my two pennies worth, a containment strategy is all very well, but ISIS may find opening up new theaters of operation is a potent recruiting tool, especially if there is the prospect of attacking Europe directly and the Western civilization so many detest. I think the dangers of such an approach are greatly understated.

I do not believe that there are enough coordinated military assets and economic resources to simultaneously take on every major instance of Islamic terrorism. Not even sure this is advisable from an operational point of view. On the contrary, focusing on fewer fronts and getting more decisive results could prove effective both in curbing expansion and with regards to morale.

Hard to take anything coming from Libya's (which one?) leadership without a truckload of salt. Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joining forces. Then again, this is not currently a viable reality - seeing as Boko Haram is still a ways off, and considering that Boko Haram did not submit to ISIS, and that ISIS does not play well with others.

There is no need for Boko Haram if one wants to make the case that Libya falling would be a threat to Southern Europe. In many ways this is already happened, or happening, regardless of the current Libyan players identity. Pretty sure that Italy is well aware of the danger and so is France.

[Steely Dan]

It's all very well trying to contain and degrade ISIS in a war of attrition, whilst sociologists try to figure out what to do. The trouble is quantifying the effectiveness of such a piecemeal strategy. Meanwhile Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joinning forces. If Libya falls the whole of Southern Europe is within striking range.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/libya-al-thani-terrorists-towards-tunisian-border_9032af27-2287-4243-92d7-c4a8189ca569.html

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/isis-wants-to-use-libya-as-gateway-to-south-europe_5a5760d2-af3b-4fd1-b630-1f78c31904fd.html

To add my two pennies worth, a containment strategy is all very well, but ISIS may find opening up new theaters of operation is a potent recruiting tool, especially if there is the prospect of attacking Europe directly and the Western civilization so many detest. I think the dangers of such an approach are greatly understated.

I do not believe that there are enough coordinated military assets and economic resources to simultaneously take on every major instance of Islamic terrorism. Not even sure this is advisable from an operational point of view. On the contrary, focusing on fewer fronts and getting more decisive results could prove effective both in curbing expansion and with regards to morale.

Hard to take anything coming from Libya's (which one?) leadership without a truckload of salt. Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joining forces. Then again, this is not currently a viable reality - seeing as Boko Haram is still a ways off, and considering that Boko Haram did not submit to ISIS, and that ISIS does not play well with others.

There is no need for Boko Haram if one wants to make the case that Libya falling would be a threat to Southern Europe. In many ways this is already happened, or happening, regardless of the current Libyan players identity. Pretty sure that Italy is well aware of the danger and so is France.

If France were ever aware of the danger they would not have been so gung-ho in getting rid of Gadhaffi. Whilst I take your point about prioritizing which Islamists to fight first I think that geography should determine this. Therefore Libya is actually more important than Iraq or Syria. Let Turkey sort out ISIS if they have the will, if they don't then the West should draw their own conclusions as to why not.

[Morch]

It's all very well trying to contain and degrade ISIS in a war of attrition, whilst sociologists try to figure out what to do. The trouble is quantifying the effectiveness of such a piecemeal strategy. Meanwhile Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joinning forces. If Libya falls the whole of Southern Europe is within striking range.

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/libya-al-thani-terrorists-towards-tunisian-border_9032af27-2287-4243-92d7-c4a8189ca569.html

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/generalnews/2015/02/18/isis-wants-to-use-libya-as-gateway-to-south-europe_5a5760d2-af3b-4fd1-b630-1f78c31904fd.html

To add my two pennies worth, a containment strategy is all very well, but ISIS may find opening up new theaters of operation is a potent recruiting tool, especially if there is the prospect of attacking Europe directly and the Western civilization so many detest. I think the dangers of such an approach are greatly understated.

I do not believe that there are enough coordinated military assets and economic resources to simultaneously take on every major instance of Islamic terrorism. Not even sure this is advisable from an operational point of view. On the contrary, focusing on fewer fronts and getting more decisive results could prove effective both in curbing expansion and with regards to morale.

Hard to take anything coming from Libya's (which one?) leadership without a truckload of salt. Libya could be the first instance of ISIS and Boko Haram joining forces. Then again, this is not currently a viable reality - seeing as Boko Haram is still a ways off, and considering that Boko Haram did not submit to ISIS, and that ISIS does not play well with others.

There is no need for Boko Haram if one wants to make the case that Libya falling would be a threat to Southern Europe. In many ways this is already happened, or happening, regardless of the current Libyan players identity. Pretty sure that Italy is well aware of the danger and so is France.

If France were ever aware of the danger they would not have been so gung-ho in getting rid of Gadhaffi. Whilst I take your point about prioritizing which Islamists to fight first I think that geography should determine this. Therefore Libya is actually more important than Iraq or Syria. Let Turkey sort out ISIS if they have the will, if they don't then the West should draw their own conclusions as to why not.

I was simply asserting that France is presently aware of the danger, which I believe to be correct.

France and Italy are not as heavily invested in the Iraq/Syria campaign against IS (most of the heavy lifting done by the USA), so between them, Egypt and other Western forces, they should be able to mount a proper offensive, if so decided. The USA is not about to put the Coalition fighting IS in Iraq/Syria on hold until the Libyan front is dealt with - and nothing to say that two campaigns can't be on at the same time, provided other member pull their weight (easier as far as Libya is concerned). The point made earlier was general in nature, to the effect that fighting on too many fronts simultaneously and having forces spread thin might not be the best way to go about things.

Leaving Turkey to handle ISIS - not a real proposition, and unless the goal is to make a point, not something that is likely to happen.