Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Deal 'In Principal' on NATO & Libya; Vice Admiral William Gortney Makes Remarks From Pentagon; NATO Deal Could be in Jeopardy
Aired March 24, 2011 - 16:01 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOE JOHNS, CNN ANCHOR: But, first, top of the hour, we want to give you a heads-up. We're monitoring a briefing out at the Pentagon. We're expecting new developments out of the Libya and word of a possible deal on the NATO operation.
CNN's Chris Lawrence is in the room standing by.
But first let's go to CNN's Elise Labott at the State Department right now.
Elise, what are you hearing about who is going to take charge of this thing and when?
ELISE LABOTT, CNN SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT PRODUCER: Well, Joe, what we're hearing is that NATO will take part in a NATO mission, will take part in this no-fly zone in the next couple of days. It could be as early as this weekend.
We're also going to see not only the NATO members, but members of the coalition get together on Tuesday, some kind of political meeting to decide some of these issues that Wolf was just talking about. What happens next? That goal is to protect civilians, but that resolution says all means necessary to get rid of the possible butchering of civilians. And now this is what is going to happen. They're going to get together, discuss. Some NATO members want to go further than others, so getting together in London to talk about what happens next.
JOHNS: And when do we think the U.S. role will actually be reduced in Libya? Do we have a timetable as yet?
LABOTT: Well, no one really knows. What's going to happen once you have Gadhafi back in his bunker, troops aren't really attacking the people in Benghazi and the east? We could have a stalemate for some very long time. So we really don't know what the next step is. Are they going to arm the civilians? Are they going to train the civilians?
As we said, that resolution says all means necessary, so there's a lot of wiggle room as to what they can do.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNS: Let me jump in there, Elise. Thanks so much.
Let's go over to the Pentagon right now, where the briefing has already started.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
VICE ADMIRAL WILLIAM GORTNEY, DIRECTOR, U.S. JOINT STAFF: -- and a scud missile garrison near Tripoli.
We flew a total of 130 coalition sorties, 49 of which were strike-related, meaning they were designed to hit a designated target. Of those total sorties, roughly half were flown by pilots from partner nations. In fact, nearly all -- some 75 percent of the combat air patrol missions in support of the no-fly zone -- are now being executed by our coalition partners. On Sunday, that figure was less than 10 percent.
Next slide, please.
Here is a good depiction of what the no-fly zone looks like right now. You can see we've got essentially seven patrol stations over the Mediterranean from which the aircraft staged themselves before being called to enforce the U.N. mandate. Some of these missions are what we call defensive combat air. You can see the patrol stations (ph) for these missions depicted in blue. These are missions designed solely to keep the airspace free of Libyan combat aircraft, and all of these missions are now being flown by our partner nation pilots.
The others patrol stations depicted in red are designed for interdiction missions, meaning these strikes conduct -- are conducted at ground targets, either fixed or moving. The United States is flying about half of all of these missions.
You can also see the no-fly zone as it exists today running coast to coast across the northern part of the country and extending further south. As I mentioned before, one of the airstrikes we conducted last night took out some SA-2 and SA-3 surface-to-air missile sites down in Saba (ph).
You can also get a sense here of the international contributions to the no-fly zone mission. More than 350 aircraft are involved in some capacity, either enforcing the no-fly zone or protecting the civilian populace. Only slightly more than half belong to the United States.
It's fair to say that the coalition is growing in both size and capability every day. Today there are nine other contributing nations to include Qatar and thousands of coalition military personnel involved in this effort. They're deployed across Europe and on the Mediterranean at bases ashore and on any of one of the 38 ships at sea.
Next slide, please.
You can see here a quick view of the maritime laydown, with most ships operating just to the north of Libya. These are, of course, notional positions as the ships are moving about, but it gives you a sense of the size and scope of the naval effort being expended by the coalition. Twenty-six of these ships are being contributed by partner nations today, up from 22 on Sunday, and the United States has a total of 12.
I would note that the presence of two aircraft carriers, France's Charles de Gaulle and Italy's Garibaldi, both of which have combat aircraft and embark (ph). So where does that leave us today?
Well, the focus right now is on several things. We continue to patrol the no-fly zone. And as I said, we are looking to further strengthening it with more aircraft on station and more terrain covered.
We continue to strike the regime's integrated air defense capabilities, as well as command-and-control facilities, logistics nodes, and ammunition supplies. We're vigorously planning to enable the delivery of humanitarian assistance by interested governments and nongovernmental agencies. And we will continue to conduct coordinated attacks on regime ground forces that threaten the lives of the Libyan people.
Let me be clear, because I think there is still some confusion out there: When and where regime forces threaten the lives of their own citizens, they will be attacked. When and where regime forces fly combat aircraft or fire at coalition aircraft, they will be attacked. And when and where regime forces attempt to break the embargo, they will be stopped.
Our message to the regime troops is simple: Stop fighting. Stop killing your own people. Stop obeying the orders of Colonel Gadhafi. To the degree that you defy these demands, we will continue to hit you and make it more difficult for you to keep going.
Lastly, let me just address the issue of transition. We are working very hard on the military side to be ready to hand over the lead of this operation to a coalition command structure as early as this weekend. As Secretary Gates said, this is a complicated process, and to some degree, it's being done on the fly. But I think that just speaks to the speed at which everything has happened over the last few days.
We ought to remember that it was only last Thursday evening when the U.N. voted the resolution into effect and only last Saturday afternoon Eastern Standard Time when the strikes began. By Sunday, the no-fly zone was effectively in place. And since that time, there has been next to no combat sorties flown by the regime, next to no effective air defense mounted, and no reports of civilian casualties caused by coalition forces.
Indeed, the only civilian casualties we know of for certain are the ones that the Libyan government itself has caused.
Next slide, please.
Now, this slide shows the disposition of forces prior to coalition intervention on Saturday afternoon Eastern Standard Time. As you can see, the opposition was isolated and under regime attack in Zawiyah, Misrata, and Benghazi, and the regime was pressing its advantage in heavy weapons and ground attack aircraft to move into Benghazi, not only to recapture the city, but also to remove the opposition's transitional council.
Despite the subsequent declarations of cease-fires by Gadhafi on Monday and Tuesday, regime forces secured Zawiyah, continued attacks against Misrata, and initiated attacks against the people in Zintan.
Next slide, please.
Today, coalition military operations have rendered the Libyan air and defense forces ineffective and forced the regime to withdraw from Benghazi to Ajdabiya. That said, regime operations in and around Misrata and Zintan have not halted. We will continue to apply the pressure we can through strikes on their logistics command communication and weapons capabilities to compel them to stop killing their own people.
No one in the U.S. military is underestimating the challenge here. Even as we transition the lead of this effort to a different command structure, we will continue to provide our partners the enabling capabilities they need to enforce the U.N. mandate.
And at this time, I would like to take your questions.
QUESTION: Admiral, you mentioned next to no combat sorties. Aside from the --
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: I think you said there have been next to no combat sorties by the Libyans, by Gadhafi forces. Aside from the aircraft that we shot down by the -- the French, have there been any other aircraft detected? And also, you went over where -- some areas where -- very quickly where the Gadhafi forces are -- are attacking. Can you go over that in a little bit more detail and any other areas where attacks are increasing or decreasing?
GORTNEY: Well, it's -- first off, let's talk about the combat air forces. The reason I chose the language that I did is, it's -- I don't want to imply that we've been 100 percent effective, but they are not effective at all. I don't -- we have not detected them flying. That does not mean that they haven't been flying; we just have not detected them flying.
And we're continuing 24 hours a day airborne early warning, 75 percent provided by the coalition. So I'm fairly confident that, if they were flying, we would have detected it. But that said, nothing is -- nothing is certain.
As to where they are fighting, the key areas, as we've mentioned, is Zintan, around Zintan, Misrata, and, of course, Ajdabiya. And it's in those particular areas where we're working from around the city to go after the C-2 architecture that's around there, their logistics, their ammo depots, to put pressure upon those forces inside the city itself, but we are not attacking -- we are not striking inside the city.
QUESTION: Admiral, one of your first charts was a layout of where your coalition aircraft are flying from before they go to their air patrols or to strike targets. Can you talk us through what a typical sortie has looked like for you? How long are your aircraft spending in the air? How many times are they taking? And just what kind of wear and tear is this taking on the airpower involved here?
GORTNEY: OK, let's go to slide three, please.
The aircraft are launching from many bases around Europe and from the two aircraft carriers, as well as our amphibious ship, the Kearsarge. Where they're launching from, we're leaving those nations to announce for it. They'll be refueling on the way there, and then they will take station on the cap stations (ph) that are annotated on the slide.
From there, if they're in the defensive combat air mission, they'll stay there, waiting tasking from the airborne AWACS aircraft, the early warning aircraft, probably tank one or two times while they're on station, always maintaining airplanes -- while one cap station (ph) would be tanking, they'll keep somebody that has enough gas to prosecute, to push inland, if they're needed to, and then probably tank on the return home.
I would say the missions are on the order of five to six hours in length, depending upon where the airplanes are taking off from.
QUESTION: Can you explain, after the coalition -- coalition partner takes the lead, can you give us any sense of what the level of participation will be by the United States? Will it be about what it is now?
GORTNEY: The -- it depends on the type of participation. Our guidance is very clear. We are going to give up the command position, as we've said from the very beginning, help enable the command and control, but give up the command positions and be participants in that process, but not in command.
And then we're going to continue to provide predominantly those capabilities that -- that we have that are unique, that enable the operations, as well as additional capacity that the coalition may not have that we do bring to the fight. An example would be tankers, some of our ISR platforms. And I would anticipate that we would continue to provide some of the -- the interdiction strike packages, as well, should that be needed by the coalition.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) we've been asking this question for days now about communications, official or otherwise, with rebel forces on the ground, between the U.S. and rebel forces on the ground. Could you answer in English about what the level is right now of that communication?
GORTNEY: We're not communicating with the coalition on the ground. At the -- at the --
(CROSSTALK)
GORTNEY: I misspoke. We're not communicating with the opposition forces on the ground, mil-to-mil communications with the opposition forces on the ground. We see the same reporting in the diplomatic channels, but when it comes to the coalition -- I mean, the opposition military forces and our military forces, we are not communicating.
QUESTION: Admiral, over the past four or five days, the average number of American sorties, overall sorties has been about 70 percent per day. It looks like, according to what we're hearing through diplomatic channels, that the -- the passage of command could occur as early as tomorrow, maybe Saturday. Does that mean tomorrow or Saturday suddenly that percentage of American sorties is going to drop to 20, 10? What is that -- what's going to happen when that change of command -- or is it going to be a fragmented drop --
GORTNEY: Phased.
QUESTION: -- a phased drop --
(CROSSTALK)
GORTNEY: Because the details are still ongoing of what the command structure will be and what it will look like, and because of the nature of the -- as more coalition partners join and bring capability and come -- and come to bear, like Qatar, they will be supporting missions here in the next couple of days, as they're ready -- bedded down and ready to get on the air tasking order.
I would see it being phased over time. And the slope of that phase is -- needs to be worked -- we still need to do some more work on.
QUESTION: So you think it could take two weeks, three weeks, a month? Any idea at all?
GORTNEY: I -- I would not hazard to guess that at this particular point, sir, but I think we'll have more clarity on that as the days progress.
QUESTION: And just one follow-up. The French say they shot a Libyan warplane -- destroyed a Libyan warplane after it had landed at Misurata. Does the coalition, the U.S., have any idea where that plane came from, where it had been, if it was even in the air?
GORTNEY: We don't have any of those details just yet. We have not received from the French, the pilots, the air crews mission reports yet, so we're awaiting for that information to get more of those details.
QUESTION: Sir, can you -- can you shed a little more light on the air-to-ground activity? It seems like you're not actually attacking vehicles, artillery and rockets. You're going after command and control and fuel. Can you let -- give the public a sense of what actually -- are you pounding the heck out of their vehicles, tanks?
GORTNEY: We're -- when it comes to the fielded forces, those fielded forces that we can positively identify as a fielded force, as a tank, as an armored personnel carrier, as a treaded (ph) rocket launcher, that has the -- that the air crew are able to make a -- a collateral damage estimate that does not put any of the people we are trying to protect at risk, then we are taking those targets under attack, as well as any command-and-control facility, any part of the integrated air and missile defense system that we discover up there, those, as well.
QUESTION: Can you shed any light on this notion of we're sending messages to the Libyan military? To what extent are you using these commando solo (ph) airplanes and sorties to force radio message onto their -- onto their -- onto their military frequencies to tell them, "Here's what to do"? Can you shed some light on that?
GORTNEY: Yes, well, the -- we're using -- as far as to send our message, we're using every tool that we have available in our toolkit. And I won't get into any more specifics than that.
But we're telling them as long as the forces continue to threaten or attack the Libyan people, they're going to be subject to attack. And so our message is to -- don't follow the regime's orders. Don't attack the people. Just cease fighting, stay in place, abandon your equipment. But if you threaten the Libyan people, attack the Libyan people, we're going to take you under attack.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) airplane, though, solo (ph)? Or are you dropping leaflets --
(CROSSTALK)
GORTNEY: We're using every tool that we have in our toolbox.
QUESTION: Admiral, can I ask you to just sort of bore down a little bit on the sortie rates? What -- what exactly is included -- when you saying there are this many sorties, are you talking exclusively warplanes? Are you talking tankers? Are you talking the commander solo (ph)? What -- what do you mean --
(CROSSTALK)
GORTNEY: We're talking the range of missions, whether a tanker, whether it's -- whether it's the ISR, whether it's the airborne early warning, the interdiction, defensive combat air patrol, as well as -- we are combining the interdiction mission with the aircraft that are tasked to detect and attack the mobile surface-to-air missiles. We're calling -- we're combining those two in that --
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNS: That's Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, the director of the Joint Staff, giving a briefing at the Pentagon on the operation in Libya. Getting a lot of questions about what happens when the United States gives up command of that operation, as we're told they're likely to do reportedly with NATO taking over. No timetables would he set for this to happen, and he wouldn't even say how long it would be before United States planes started flying fewer sorties than they're flying now. So we're going to come back to the continuing coverage, and when we do come back, we'll go over to the State Department and talk to our producer Elise Labott, who has been reporting on this throughout the day.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHNS: Continuing on the news this afternoon, we do know here in the United States that NATO, or at least we've been told that NATO is likely to make an announcement, reportedly to make an announcement that they will be taking over the operation in Libya.
That would be, of course, the no-fly zone that has generated so much attention and controversy throughout the world as the United States and the allies continue to try to put pressure on the leader, Moammar Gadhafi, there in Libya.
Let's go now to Reza Sayah on the ground. He is actually in Benghazi.
And probably the first question for you, Reza, is what's happening there? Can you give us any sense as to whether the news, number one, has trickled over that NATO apparently is going to be taking control of this operation, and does it really make any difference to people on the ground?
REZA SAYAH, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that announcement just happened, so I doubt everybody here knows it, but I don't think it really makes any difference for these opposition fighters who takes control of this operation as long as it stays in place.
But, Joe, in listening to the Pentagon official talk, what's remarkable is what seems to be completely ignored, and that's the state of intention, the stated mission of this is opposition forces. And they stated openly is -- that is they want a war. They want to continue fighting. They want to take this war to Moammar Gadhafi and topple the regime. And I think that's something that's often buried with these statistics, the scorekeeping of this conflict is that what's emerging is the second round of this war, if you will.
And that raises a whole bunch of questions. When you look at U.N. Resolution 1973, its stated intention is that the bloodshed is going to end. You hear coalition officials, you hear U.S. officials say that's the ultimate goal, to end the bloodshed.
But the question is, if indeed these opposition forces managed to turn the table and moved westward towards Moammar Gadhafi and Tripoli and take the war to the regime, what will the coalition forces, what will this operation do then. Will they stand on the sidelines? Will they helped the opposition forces, which appears to be a violation of the U.N. resolution?
Or will they stop the opposition forces to end the bloodshed, just like they stopped the Gadhafi forces? Which seems an unlikely scenario, considering the U.S. officials, President Barack Obama, French officials, have come out saying they want Moammar Gadhafi to be toppled.
JOHNS: Well one thing that does seem certainly clear is that this no-fly zone, the allies involvement came very late. Have you been able to assess just how badly that hurt the rebels?
SAYAH: Well, it certainly hurt the rebels in some regions. Remember, the column of tanks and armor belonging to the regime was just on the gates of Benghazi, which is now the opposition's capital. And if it weren't for the no-fly zone beginning on Saturday, these people in Benghazi are convinced they would have been slaughtered.
But what's happened is that we've had a shift in momentum. Now opposition forces are taking the fights to Gadhafi forces, they're on the verge of entering Ajdabiya; you have Misrata, which is in east -- east of Tripoli, there's heavy fighting going on there.
But again, what's important to underscore here is that the stage is set for what could be a complicated, long, drawn-out and bloody conflict, which goes against the stated intention of U.N. Resolution 1973, Joe.
JOHNS: Talk a bit more about that. How so?
SAYAH: Well, here's how so. You have to look at what's happening in Ajdabiya, what's happening in Misrata. These are two key cities where, according to witnesses, you have Gadhafi forces, you have snipers loyal to the regime setting up on roofs, you have tanks according to witnesses who by accounts are terrorizing, assaulting, even killing innocent civilians.
And the question is, how will it operation, Operation Odyssey Dawn, respond to these types of tactics that are very difficult to respond to with jet fighters.
Remember, there are some people on the ground here, oppositions forces, that are calling for troops on the ground. This is how far they want to take it. And the question is, will NATO, will a coalition take that next step, which could mean an escalation of this conflict.
JOHNS: And certainly would create a lot of concern among many quarters who were expecting this to only by a game in the sky, if you will.
Thank you so much, Reza Sayah. We'll be getting back to you.
Up next, we're getting a major announcement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Continuing coverage of breaking news. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHNS: Let's go now to CNN's Elise Labott at the State Department.
Elise, I understand Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to make a statement.
LABOTT: We're looking to hear from her in a couple hours, Joe. We're expecting to hear from her on where NATO is going with this mission in terms of handing it over to a NATO commanding control. The U.S. has been really anxious to hand over to NATO, and there have been a lot of discussions back and forth between the French, the Turks, the UK and the U.S. We understand that Secretary Clinton had a phone call today with all of these foreign ministers to nail down how it will go.
It's going to look a lot like it does in Afghanistan, where it's a NATO-led commission and they have this kind of command and control, but at the same time, you have a coalition of other states, including some Arab states, and they'll all be at the table deciding what the political strategy of this mission is. As you know, some members as we've been talking about -- a lot of members want to go farther than others. This resolution of the U.N. Security Council calls for "all means necessary" to protect the Libyan people, but some, like the Turks, only want to go to the no-fly zone.
So, on Tuesday, all the foreign ministers of the coalition, some international organizations are going to get together in London. Secretary Clinton will be there. And they'll talk about building support for the mission in Libya and where do we go from here?
JOHNS: Has anybody really talked with the secretary of state and has she responded about questions about - just the American sensibilities, given the fact that now we are essentially engaged in some type of military action in at least four countries? We have Libya. We have Iraq. We have Afghanistan. And when you count the drone actions over Pakistan -- it sounds like a really full plate for the United States. Secretary of state at all talked about that?
LABOTT: She hasn't talked about it in terms of a full plate, but we see Secretary Clinton is all over the world. I just traveled with her to Cairo and Tunisia, also to Paris, when they were talking about the mission in Libya. So it's really -- the U.S. is really trying -- kind of like whack-a-mole. The secretary has compared it to drinking from a fire hose, where it's really with dealing with all these countries and all of these issues. The U.S. also is still bogged down in Afghanistan, trying to get out of the Iraq.
In terms of Libya, the U.S. has made really clear that this is a humanitarian mission. President Obama was the one who came into office, reminding -- and he has a lot of people working for him that were working during the Clinton administration. Reminding of Rwanda, saying this is never happen again. So, President Obama really, as part of American values and interests has said we really can't let Colonel Gadhafi go to Benghazi. They were expecting really a slaughter of thousands of people.
So, in these terms, they're really focusing on the humanitarian mission of this. Obviously they're saying the goal is to get Gadhafi out. But really the reason for the U.S. getting involved militarily, really is a humanitarian thing here. And I think the rest of the world agrees with it.
JOHNS: Elise Labott, thank you for that. We're going to go away from you now and may come back.
There's breaking news out of the NATO headquarters in Brussels. Paula Newton is there.
Paula, what do you know?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Joe, some last- minute hiccups here. We had the NATO ambassadors walk out of their meeting, because at the last minute, the Turkish delegation said they were not happy with the timing of the transition. They said they did not understand the way it was going to take place. They wanted the U.S. to be able to turn over control to NATO a lot sooner than the timetable outlined. There seemed to be a misunderstanding. They broke for half an hour. They reconvened.
Now for about 40 minutes -- and we're getting word from inside the meeting, from NATO sources saying there are problems. They're going to decide in about 20 or 25 minutes if they can actually agree to this, or if they have to work out yet more details. Which means, Joe, they'll go home for the night, and they will not release any kind of statement.
It really is indicative of how sensitive all these issues are. When you were talking to Reza Sayah on the ground there in Benghazi, and he's talking about what does this coalition do? If there's street fighting, if they're not happy with the way the rebels are conducting themselves at any given time? These are the kinds of issues that make Turkey and the wider Arab and Muslim countries very, very nervous.
So, this is a very complex thing. We heard from the Pentagon saying this was basically done on the fly. And you can see here that right now this agreement in principle that they have absolutely outlined already to us is in jeopardy. They may have to move it over to tomorrow if they can't work it out in the next 20 minutes.
Right now, the ambassadors are saying if we can't work out what we've already agreed, we all want to go back to our capitals and confer again, really, with our political masters. Joe?
JOHNS: So, one of the key issue, obviously, is just when will the United States step away? And Turkey is indicating that they want the United States to give up command sooner rather than later? Is that the issue?
NEWTON: Yes, and also for this whole hand-over, and NATO sources have told me this several times, to be seamless, it will take a lot of military planning. They haven't had a long time to work out the details of air strikes. They've worked out any details that have to do with the naval blockade and the no-fly zone. The military planners have had a look at that. They have not been able to look at the issue of air strikes when and under what conditions they might happen. They're working on it right now. But it's going to take until at least the weekend for all of these countries -- again reminding you that NATO has to have consensus from 28 countries. They weren't even going to have a chance to look at this detail in the fine print until the weekend. This is what concerns Turkey. They're worried it will drag on a little bit longer.
And again, NATO officials say this happened quite dramatically. It was the last thing in the meeting. The secretary-general was about to come out and give us a statement, and then at the last minute, Turkey said hold on a minute. We're going back to our capital.
Right now, they have reconvened. We hope to get word in the next 15 or 20 minutes, Joe.
JOHNS: So, it's your impression that the air strikes issue has been worked out? You were talking at the top of this program about whether they could figure out the proper rules of engagement so that all parties in the room would be satisfied that civilians were not being killed?
NEWTON: The point is the 28 nations all trust NATO to be able to decipher what kind of air strikes they're comfortable with, and that cooler heads would prevail. There's been a lot of grumblings from some nations, saying, look, we're not all happy with the way air strikes have been conducted by France and Britain and the United States. We believe perhaps they've gone a bit far. And what is the involvement in terms of the end game here? Are they going to be backing one side in the civil war in Libya? Or are they going to stand back and just make sure that Gadhafi's forces don't have that extra firepower that will basically cause a humanitarian disaster in Libya?
There are very interesting issues on the table here, and they implicate not just this conflict in Libya, but the credibility of this alliance going forward. The allies, the ambassadors, speaking to me have made that quite clear. That's why they're sticking to the letter of the lawyer. This principle, agreement saying, look, if anything is going to diverge from this, we're not happy about it.
And precisely the reason, Joe, that for political control, France was pushing for a bit more latitude. They wanted that contact group put together, and they wanted to decide more precisely, politically the kind of air strikes that could be underway in Libya. That's not going to happen now. You have to have -- if NATO takes full command, this 28-member alliance to agree to everything.
And it's been interesting. Even today from Turkey, from the prime minister of Turkey, very, very tough words for his European allies, saying, basically, as quoted from the Turkish media, "here you have European countries that won't even let us into the European Union, and now they're conducting crusades." The language, the rhetoric has really not cooled down from that corner, and they still have a lot of concerns about this. So, we wait and see what happens.
JOHNS: Paula Newton reporting on the delicate negotiations right now. The United States trying to relinquish command of that no-fly zone, and some people balking at just what's being proposed to do that.
The Pentagon is announcing a brand-new strategy in Libya. Up next, we'll ask retired General James "Spider" Marks about what's happening right now. Continuing coverage of the breaking news. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHNS: At the top of this program, we learned there was an agreement in principle for the United States to hand over command of that no-fly zone to NATO. Now, late in the program, we learned that deal may be in jeopardy as certain countries are balking over the timetable for the United States to relinquish control of the operation and other issues.
Now let's turn to the Pentagon and listen to what was said there just moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GORTNEY: Our guidance is very clear. We are going to give up the command position, as we've said from the very beginning, help enable the command and control, but give up the command positions and be participants in that process, but not in command.
And then we're going to continue to provide predominantly those capabilities that -- that we have that are unique, that enable the operations, as well as additional capacity that the coalition may not have that we do bring to the fight. An example would be tankers, some of our ISR platforms. And I would anticipate that we would continue to provide some of the -- the interdiction strike packages, as well, should that be needed by the coalition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Now, let's bring in Chris live at the Pentagon. Chris, when you listen to that, you get the impression that while the United States is eager to give up command and control, the United States is still going to be involved to a very great extent.
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Yes, when you listen to what he said -- ISR basically means intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance. A lot of the eyes, so to speak, on the ground that the U.S. can provide from a long distance away.
Also, when he talked about those interdiction strikes, he's talking about mostly fighter jets that are running some of these sorties to try to not only put eyes on the ground, but also attack some of Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
If you look at the last 12 hours, some of the information we just got just a few minutes ago, you can see the breakdown between what the United States is doing and what the other coalition partners are doing. The word we got was, that, say in the last 12 hours, the coalition partners had flown about 300 sorties. This is planes flying over, doing their runs. They last about five to six hours each. While the coalition partners were doing about 300, the U.S. was doing close to about 450.
So, again the United States still very much in the lead at this point if you combine all the other coalition partners, they still are not close to what the U.S. is doing on its own.
But in certain other ways, you are starting to see a transition. There are 26 coalition partnerships in the Mediterranean Sea that are sort of part of the base for this operation, only 12 U.S. ships at this point.
So, some of that is starting to change, and then we also heard word that some of the Qatar's planes will be in the air this weekend, also picking up more of that responsibility, Joe.
JOHNS: All right. So, Chris Lawrence, thank you very much.
We want to go over to Major General Spider Marks right now, former commanding general in the U.S. Army Intelligence Center.
The simple question for you is: when you listen to what the Pentagon is saying, they're giving up command and control eventually -- the details still being worked out, apparently, with NATO, though that deal could break down.
But, at the end of the day, if the United States is still heavily involved, what's the difference on whether they have command or control?
MAJ. GEN. JAMES A. "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.), FORMER COMMANDING GEN., U.S. ARMY INTEL CENTER: Well, the key thing is, Joe, the U.S. very much does not want to be the lead for a sustained effort in Libya. If you look at this, what happened over the course of the last few days is the United States had a very prominent lead. And a number of tasks had to be taken care of and they had to be done by U.S. assets. Stealth B-2 bombers, a lot of cruise missiles, some cruise missiles were launched by the Brits as well, but all of those tasks were front- loaded. We're now at the point where there literally and legitimately can be a transition and someone else could take the lead. The U.S. is four score behind that.
The problem exists that the United States will continue to have a prominent role as you've indicated. Nobody does combat search and rescue better than we do. Nobody has the capability to do the refueling and create those abilities so all the sorties can top off before they go in to take their -- to do their respective missions. Nobody does intelligence like the United States. But also, in support of that intelligence requirement is the dissemination of that common operating picture down to the command suites that exist out there at multiple echelons.
The United States wouldn't necessarily have the guy in charge, but they'll have a very, very prominent role. It will be the glue that holds this thing together as we forward. But they've done this many, many times before. This is not new.
JOHNS: It does sound, though, like a very open-ended proposition, when you consider the fact that they're there to protect civilians. If the unrest continues, the question I have is whether it's going to continue at least until and unless Moammar Gadhafi has left the country one way or the other.
MARKS: Joe, that's really the issue. I think it's quite intriguing, yet not surprising that the Turks have said, let's get this thing going right now, understand the transition, let's launch this bad boy, let's put the new command structure in place right now.
And here's why. I think the concern is we've got this great chasm between what is being prosecuted so incredibly well by this military alliance, this capability, yet we've got this policy that says Gadhafi has got to go. So, the Turks have said, let's take this off the table, we've got this U.N. mandate. Let's have somebody else in charge before we get embroiled in this long, drawn-out Gadhafi's got to go discussion that ends up with a lot of mission creep, which you would anticipate.
I don't think anybody is expecting Gadhafi to simply raise a hand and say, come take me away in chains. I think honestly somebody is going to have to put a bullet in his head or he's going to have to fall over the horizon, disappear and go away before anything else changes.
JOHNS: Leave it with that thought. Retired Major General James "Spider" Marks, thanks for that.
MARKS: Thank you.
JOHNS: Could Libya become the new headquarters for al Qaeda? There are growing fears that the terror group is making a play for power there -- continuing coverage of our breaking news. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHNS: Let's check in now with CNN's Wolf Blitzer at the CNN Washington bureau.
Hey, Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Thanks very much, Joe.
Over the next two hours, in "THE SITUATION ROOM" right now, we're expecting major news from NATO's Secretary General Anders Rasmussen. He's going to announce presumably, at least we're told, that NATO is taking charge.
In the 6:00 p.m. Eastern hour, we're expecting to hear from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She's getting ready to go to London on that big meeting on Tuesday on where this Libya operation goes.
So, there's a lot happening right now. We expect a lot of breaking news to unfold. This is not by no means, we're told, a done deal. They've got to finesse everyone.
When NATO makes an arrangement like this, a military arrangement, Joe, as you well know, and as a lot of our viewers know, they have to do it by consensus. In other words, all the NATO allies, all the NATO partners have to great.
And, right now, Turkey is on one side, France is on the other, Germany is somewhere in the middle. The United States is trying to finesse this deal. It's by no means a done deal yet, it might be within an hour or so, maybe half an hour.
We've been at waiting to hear from the NATO secretary general for the past couple hours, still hasn't shown up at NATO headquarters. Once he does, we'll have live coverage and we'll certainly have live coverage of Hillary Clinton's remarks in the 6:00 p.m. Eastern hour from the State Department -- Joe.
JOHNS: And, Wolf, there's a sense of urgency here at least for the people in Washington, perhaps, people at the White House, because they've really been putting on a lot of pressure to try to get out of the middle of this thing and give up command and control to someone else.
BLITZER: Right, the president said early on, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, said early on, the Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said early on it will be a matter of days, not weeks before the U.S. hands over responsibility to some other power, whether NATO, the Europeans, or someone else -- days -- they keep say days not weeks.
It's now been days. Pretty soon, it will be a week. So, we'll see if they can make that arrangement today. That's what the White House would very much like. They've been working feverishly around the clock to achieve it, because the president really wants to see someone else take charge, not necessarily the United States.
JOHNS: Wolf Blitzer, thanks so much for that.
Coming up: the growing fears Libya could become a breeding ground for al Qaeda terrorists. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHNS: While we watch what's going on in Libya, it begs the question, where is al Qaeda in all of this?
Let's bring in CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank.
Paul, by helping the opposition in Libya, those who oppose Moammar Gadhafi, has this created an opening for al Qaeda?
PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, that could be an opening for al Qaeda here. There's legitimate concern about that, that al Qaeda could take advantage if there's a civil war situation in Libya for many, many months indeed. Yes, we've seen that happen before, that video play out before in Afghanistan in the 1990s, in Algeria, the same decade, more recently in Iraq.
So, al Qaeda has been able to take advantage of those sorts of conditions on those countries before. And there's a lot of radicalization in eastern Libya in recent years, a disproportionate number of the suicide bombers in Iraq were from eastern Libya. So, there are opportunities for al Qaeda, but they have very little presence there right now. The main jihadi group in Libya, the Libyan Islamic fighting group has ceased its operation in Libya.
Nic Robertson and I were actually there in Libya in 2009. We spoke to a lot of its leaders and they've said they repudiated al Qaeda right now. The group in the region which could take advantage is perhaps al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate. But that's being pushed away from North Africa, to the south, to Sahel region, (INAUDIBLE), Niger, places like that. So, they're not in much of a position to take advantage either right now.
And these airstrikes by the United States, by Frances, they've actually been quite popular in eastern Libya. And that's not going to help al Qaeda spread its message, Joe.
JOHNS: A lot of questions have been raised about whether the United States knows enough about the people it is helping. Is the United States confident of the motives, say of the rebels? And does it know at the end of the day who's going to be the winner here and what they're going to do going forward?
CRUICKSHANK: Well, that's an excellent question. It's not entirely clear who these people are. There's a lot of radicalization in the area. Islamists and jihadist are probably amongst the ranks of these rebel fighters there at the moment. They might be hiding their true colors.
But the secularists seem to be more prominent right now over that. There's not been that much Islamic chanting in these rallies in eastern Libya. Also, the provisional council in Benghazi does not have Islamists on it at the moment. But there has been some fundamentalism in the area, so there is concern.
The Muslim Brotherhood could also play an increasing role over there. There are thousands of members in Libya. They've been sort of organizing secretly there for many years, but they've actually welcomed the U.S. intervention, Joe. So, there's a lot still to be determined.
JOHNS: And another question that's been going on again and again over the last 24, 48 hours, why Libya right now? Why not Syria or Bahrain or Egypt? The United States goes in in this situation, but, you know, why not some of these other countries? Is there something we're not being told here? Or is it as some have said, just about oil? CRUICKSHANK: Well, I think that the biggest reason is there could have been a humanitarian catastrophe. The Gadhafi forces were not only at the gates of Benghazi, but they're actually going into the city. I think that's probably the main reason why there's this intervention.
Also, the Arab League gave the international community cover here. They voted in favor of this resolution with Syria, with Bahrain, with Yemen. They're very unlikely to do this.
Gadhafi really alienated the Arab League, Joe.
JOHNS: Right. Great. Thanks so much, Paul Cruickshank. Always great to get your perspective certainly at a time like this, and we will be checking back in with you.
Now, it's time for "THE SITUATION ROOM" with Wolf Blitzer.
