Talk:Operation Odyssey Dawn

covert support

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/u-s-official-obama-authorized-covert-support-for-libya-rebels-1.353122?localLinksEnabled=false

Will this be covered here or in a different article? Hcobb (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Op names: useful clarifying info from GlobalSecurity.org

The following from GlobalSecurity.org[1] seems to clear up some of the contradictions in the news media about operation names, and clarifies who some of the countries were that participated in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

"When operations relating to the enforcement of UN Resolution 1973 began on 19 March 2011, a number of operational nicknames were already in use. The United States referred to its participation as Operation Odyssey Dawn. Other nations used their own names to refer to forces deployed to the region. These included Canada (Operation Mobile), France (Opération Harmattan), and the United Kingdom (Operation Ellamy). Other coalition partners either referenced no name, or deployed forces stated to be operating as part of the Operation Odyssey Dawn coalition, effectively taking on that name."

"Operating under the authority provided by U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, coalition forces, composed of military assets from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, launched on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn against targets inside Libya and aimed at protecting civilians from attacks perpetrated by pro-Muammar Al-Qadhafi forces."

"The operation began with the dispatch of French air assets from France to Libya, composed of 8 Rafale, 2 Mirage 2000-5, 2 Mirage 2000D, 6 C-135FR air refueling tanker aicraft and one E-3F AWACS. As a result of the odenamed "Opération Harmattan", the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the French began setting up an exclusion zone around Benghazi, reportedly destroying in the process four Lybian government tanks."

So before the coalition formed, various countries had their own operational names. When the coalition formed, its operation was called Odyssey Dawn and included the US, France, UK, Italy and Canada and various countries, who kept the the operation names for each of their respective participations in the coalition operation Odyssey Dawn. For example, " 'Opération Harmattan', the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, ...".

For some info about GlobalSecurity.org, see the wikilinked article about it and also GlobalSecurity.org - About us and GlobalSecurity.org - Praise from others. 75.47.131.253 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it starts by saying "the United States referred to its participation as Operation Odyssey Dawn" (emphasis mine) and that some (not all) other forces later deployed to the region also took on that name. That is nowhere near the same as saying that the entire coalition operation is called Odyssey Dawn. It then provides absolutely no evidence for its assertion that OD is the overall title, especially given its previous reference to individual countries alternative names. Given the specific statements from the MoD at least (I haven't seen any specific denials from the French ministry but that have stated that Harmattan is a specific French operation) that Odyssey dawn is merely a US name for the US and others contribution, this doesn't prove anything. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The GlobalSecurity.org article doesn’t begin as you said but begins with, “Operating under the authority provided by U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, coalition forces, composed of military assets from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, launched on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn ...” .[2] Your excerpt about U.S. participation was taken out of context and does not apply to the time after the beginning of enforcement operations when the coalition was formed and the U.S. was given command of it. We have a similar transition situation now as various countries’ operations, including operations of U.S., UK, France, et al, come under command of NATO and become part of Operation Unified Protector. 75.47.153.132 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote you gave. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thnx for clarifying. I put the first quote at the beginning because it had info about the time period before the other quotes. In the order of the article, it came after the other quotes. I thought the first quote was interesting because it showed that before the coalition was formed, each country had its own name for its own operation, and later the meaning of the U.S. code name became broader when Gen. Ham and Adm. Locklear of the U.S. were given command of the coalition operations and the coalition task force respectively. This was consistent with how the name Unified Protector for the NATO operation was at first limited to a smaller part of the operation, but became broader when it was handed more parts of the enforcement action. 75.47.147.68 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The French Mininstry of Defense makes it very clear that Odyssey Dawn is a US operation and Harmattan is a separate but coordinated French operation. Admiral Locklear, as commander of "Joint Task Force US Odyssey Dawn", visited the Charles de Gaulle on March 21 as part of the "l’étroite coordination entre les forces de la coalition internationale" ("close coordination between the forces of the international coalition").[3] All French operations are given as part of Opération Harmattan, until 06:00 GMT on March 31 when NATO took command of "l’ensemble des opérations menées en Libye" ("all operations in Libya") and "Ces opérations sont désormais conduites sous le nom Unified Protector" ("These operations are now conducted under the name Unified Protector).[4] This does not support and indeed contradicts the GlobalSecurity.org claims. Only the French destroyer Forbin is part of OD, having been transferred to JTF Odyssey Dawn and AFRICOM command on March 28. The British Ministry of Defence states that "The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn]."[5] ShipFan (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article is terrible in comparison to the others.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. invented the name Operation Odyssey Dawn and is thus authoritative regarding its meaning. Also the UK, France, and Canada respectively invented the names Ellamy, Harmattan, and Mobile, and they are thus respectively authoritative regarding the meanings of those names. According to the U.S., UK, France, and Canada, who are respectively authorities for just the names that they each respectively invented, the coalition operation is Odyssey Dawn, UK's part is Ellamy, France's part is Harmattan, and Canada's is Mobile. See Operation names. 75.47.147.68 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the MoD,

What is the name of the Operation? The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].

— http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/MilitaryOperations/LibyaOperationEllamyQuestionsAndAnswers.htm

Odyssey Dawn is only the US codename for their operations i.e. they implicitly reject the use of Odyssey Dawn for any kind of overarching reference to UK operations. The French Ministry of Defence refers to Odyssey Dawn as well as merely the US participation (specifically the name of the task force).

Le 21 mars, l’amiral Samuel J. Locklear, commandant de la Joint Task Force US « Odyssey Dawn », [emphasis mine] s’est rendu à bord du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle . L’amiral Locklear dirige l’état-major embarqué à bord du bâtiment de commandement américain USS Mount Whitney en opérations au large de la Libye.

— http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/autres-operations/operation-harmattan-libye/actualites/task-force-473-visite-du-commandant-de-la-jtf-odyssey-dawn-a-bord-du-charles-de-gaulle

On the basis of both quotes it seems evident there's a conflict between the various different ministries/departments. To state anything more than that the US is using the name Odyssey Dawn for its operations (which we can verify) violates WP:NPOV as it implicitly involves us claiming that the MoD and MdlD are wrong. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in my previous message I already addressed nearly all the points in your recent message when they were put forth by you previously. I can add that in the one instance that you mentioned of a UK MoD comment about Operation Odyssey Dawn, the wording of that statement does not rule out the possibility that Odyssey Dawn is also the US name for the coalition operation, as stated by the U.S. Dept. of Defense. Perhaps it would help if I directed you to another quote from the UK MoD FAQ source, "What is the chain of command? This operation is currently under US command...".[6] Remember, this is the UK's position. With this in mind, and from the specific statement from the additional source GlobalSecurity.com, the UK should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent in the coalition's Operation Odyssey Dawn. 75.47.147.68 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't addressed those points, you've made various arguments nearly all of which have involved placing unusual interpretations on fairly specific statements. Regarding the MoD quote, it may not rule out it being the name being used by the DoD for the coalition. It does rule out that UK forces are part of Odyssey Dawn (at least in the MoD's eyes) or that the UK recognises it as an overarching name quite explicitly (to paraphrase, 'our operation is called ELLAMY, their operation is called Odyssey Dawn' kind of implies (what with the seperate names and all) that they're seperate operations). Listing Canada, France and the UK under Odyssey Dawn violates our policy on neutral point of view - we're not qualified to say that the defence ministries of 3 seperate countries are wrong and don't know who is in command of their forces nor what the title of their operations are. When they say that ELLAMY/MOBILE/Harmattan are their contributions to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 (which they have and we can cite them doing so), we can use that to reference their being contributions to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 not Odyssey Dawn as that's not what they said. I'd also advise you to consider WP:SYNTH, which would also address your chain of command point (which also involves ignoring specific statements fromn the MoD (that operational authority is specifically in the hands of the PJHQ, not the US DoD) and the French MdlD (that there is no overall chain of command, instead co-ordinated actions involving numerous country-level command centres)). Taking a general quote "this operation is currently under US command" (which as I've pointed out is inherently contradicted in the specifics by quotes regarding command authority being vested in several RN/RAF commanders or there not being an overall chain of command) and interpreting it to mean "the US is unilaterally entitled to decide the name for the entire international coalitions' involvement and any specific statements from national ministries that inherently contradict this should be refomulated so that they fit in with a predetermined argument" is synthesis. - Chrism would like to hear from you 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments. There is no violation of WP:SYNTH because the UK as a belligerent in Odyssey Dawn is properly supported by the GlobalSecurity.org source I provided. (Also note that WP:SYNTH applies to the article page, not the talk page; furthermore, don't misquote me.) There is no violation of WP:NPOV because the UK does not contradict this and because the view of the UK MoD is that the US was in command of the operation, which was clearly stated. The problem is in your interpretation of the UK MoD source, going beyond what it says about Odyssey Dawn, and especially your interpretation that the UK statement “This operation is currently under US command..." means something other than the operation is under US command. Here’s another UK source regarding US command of UK operations: William Hague: 'Gaddafi regime in for a surprise' (March 25, 2011) BBC. At 00:40 - Interviewer, "...who has operational command of the various sorties we are currently seeing involving UK forces?" British Foreign Secretary Hague's response, "They are under a US command..." 75.47.159.190 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

Firstly, I didn't misquote you, I paraphrased you. Secondly, yes SYNTH only applies to article pages. So if you add UK/France/Canada forces to the Odyssey Dawn article page, that is prohibited by our policy on synthesis. I'm glad you agree with my interpretation and won't be adding this conflicted claim to the article. And to claim that I'm taking statements and twisting them beyond their literal interpretation is mildly amusing. You're twisting "This operation is currently under US command..." into "this operation is called Odyssey Dawn" which is not what the MoD and MdlF says (a point you have repeatedly ignored).

This is apparently the first time London, Paris and Washington have failed to come up with a unified chain of command for the operation.
Laurent Teisseire, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, told journalists: "There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion."
This unprecedented, three-pronged command is reflected in the different names for the operation: The French are calling it Harmattan (the name of a hot wind that blows over the Sahara); in Britain, it is Operation Ellamy; and in the US, it is Odyssey Dawn.

[7] - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm becoming depressingly aware how apposite this cartoon is atm. Ho hum. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see any progress in your remarks, use of the sources, or interpretation of my remarks, to which you have added the false claim that I agree with you regarding your synth allegations. I stand by my previous remarks. Maybe you should reread them. The news media excerpt that you provided says that France and UK each had its own name for “the operation”, but their respective websites said that the names were for their participation. The part that says, “There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion.”, has been addressed in my previous message. 75.47.159.190 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point out exactly where you've addressed the explicit statement that their is no overall chain of command and how this doesn't contradict your claim there is an overall chain of command. Or indeed the numerous references showing the multiple operations are seperate from each other if co-ordinated to mean that they are not seperate from each other but that 3 are components of one larger. Regardless of the quote from globalsecurity.org. it conflicts with multiple statements from multiple reliable sources, and any attempt to 'interpret' them so as to be compatible is where we start heading into OR/SYNTH tertritory. Regardless, I fail to see the point in continuing to argue over this as it's quite clear from the responses from not just myself but several other users that there is no consensus for including particpants in ELLAMY/Harmattan/MOBILE under the Odyssey Dawn banner nor does it seem likely that any such consensus is likely given you're the only person who seems to be pushing this viewpoint. Chrism would like to hear from you 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I could respond to your points, but I think it would only prolong this very long discussion that is just between the two of us and is becoming acrimonius, instead of heading towards agreement. Maybe it's best to leave it to others who may want to pick up our discussion. How do you feel about that? 75.47.152.181 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On that, I can fully agree with you. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents in Operation Odyssey Dawn

This section is for listing belligerents, supporting sources for the info, and the excerpts from the sources. This will be used for determining the belligerents in the info box for this article. The purpose is to have a well sourced article and to check whether any belligerents are missing.

(Please no comments in the list. Place comments in the section below the list. Thnx.)

1. belligerents: United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada -- source: Operation Odyssey Dawn, GlobalSecurity.org -- excerpt: "... coalition forces, composed of military assets from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, launched on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn ..." 75.47.147.68 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
2. next

Comments

As per above, no due to egregious WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH violations. - Chrism would like to hear from you 04:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn's change in meaning with change in coalition command

Here's my understanding of the evolution of the meaning of the name Odyssey Dawn. Before the US was given command of the coalition, i.e. when forces were building up prior to the Mar 19 meeting in France, Odyssey Dawn was the US operation. When the US was given command of the international coalition, the meaning of Odyssey Dawn changed to mean the international coalition's operation. Now that command of the coalition has passed from the US to NATO, the operations go by the NATO name Unified Protector. Its unclear to me what the meaning of Odyssey Dawn is for the current state, after the passing of coalition command to NATO. Hopefully this will be sorted out in some future reliable source. In any case, I think the name Odyssey Dawn will be fading from the description of the operations in Libya, now that NATO has been placed in command and the meaning of NATO's name for its operations, Unified Protector, has changed to include the operations of the coalition. 75.47.157.129 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert of change in belligerents of info box from a list of countries to NATO

I twice reverted a change that removed a list of belligerent countries from the info box and that replaced them with NATO. The list of countries applied to the roughly 12 days before NATO was given command of the international forces. I'm not sure how to characterize the situation now. In any case, characterizing the situation before NATO was given command of the international forces with NATO as the only belligerent is not supported by a source and is incorrect. 75.47.152.181 (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On this, I agree. Using NATO as an umbrella term to describe the entitrety of member states contribution is incorrect. NATO contributions should be limited to those officially undertaken under its banner and through the alliance command and control structure. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

UK forces in Operation Odyssey Dawn

A previous version of this Wikipedia article included UK forces in the Deployed forces section. It was supported by a source from the UK House of Commons Library that appeared on the UK Parliament’s website.

Claire Taylor and Ben Smith (April 4, 2011) Military Operations in Libya House of Commons Library, www.parliament.uk (UK Parliament Website)

In section 3 of the above source, it gave a list of countries and their military assets that were committed to Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the part pertaining to the UK was used for the UK forces in the Deployed forces section.

Then the UK forces deployment was modified by an editor who obtained info from the Operation Ellamy Wikipedia article, according to the edit summary. That modification was incorrect because it contained info for the deployment of Operation Ellamy under Operation Unified Protector, which came after Operation Odyssey Dawn. That is evident from looking at the sources that the modifying editor provided and noting that the UK participation in Operation Odyssey Dawn ended on March 31, 2011.

Then the UK deployment was removed altogether without providing a source and without discussion on this Talk page, and contrary to the above UK government source.

To summarize, the UK forces deployed in Operation Odyssey Dawn was supported by a UK government source and the modification of those forces in the Deployment section was erroneous and pertained to the state of UK forces after they were no longer in Operation Odyssey Dawn. Therefore I restored the original version to the Deployed forces section. 75.47.149.194 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

all the sources until now said that the operations of the UK and the French were direct by by their national air commands and coordinated with Odyssey Dawn, but not part of. The coalition members put their assets under AFRICOM, which commanded the mission. But while nations like Belgium, Norway et. al. had their forces under direct US command, the British and French had their national air-commands between AFRICOM and their actual forces. This was to make sure that they could operate with more loose rules of engagement. Therefore British and French assets should not be listed at Odyssey Dawn, because unlike i.e. the Norwegian forces, which were in theater and under US command from the start, the British forces were chosen as needed by the British air-command (acting upon request of AFRICOM). Since Unified Protector began also Britain has transfered its forces to NATO and the national air-command is not involved anymore. noclador (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Without a source, the above appears to be OR. Also, please note new section at WP:ANI re your abuse of an anti-vandalism tool Twinkle. 75.47.150.44 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

first please remain calm, as said at ANI it was an unintended mistake to label your edits vandalism and I would appreciate if you were to assume good faith. thanks. Also the I did not do any OR, but based my edits on the UK MODs press communiques like i.e. this one: [8] were it states: "This operation is currently under US command, supported closely by French and UK Armed Forces." "The UK's deployed assets and personnel fall under the operational command of the Chief of Joint Operations, Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, who commands the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood. On the air side, the UK's Joint Force Air Component Headquarters is controlling the UK's contribution to the air operation in conjunction with the coalition. Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell is the UK's Joint Force Air Component Commander; he is based with his staff at Ramstein with AFRICOM's Air Component HQ. On the maritime side, Rear Admiral Ian Corder, Commander Operations, is controlling the UK's contribution to maritime operations in conjunction with the coalition. He is based at Northwood."

as you can see the official press releases of the MOD state that the UK is controlling its own forces and supports the US command closely. As stated above; the UK and France kept their military assets under their national commands and worked in conjunction with the US command; but did not allow AFRICOM; direct command over their forces. noclador (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn’t who had direct command of the UK forces (that can be discussed elsewhere if anyone desires) but whether or not the UK military assets were committed to Operation Odyssey Dawn. The excerpts you gave did not state whether or not the UK assets were committed to Operation Odyssey Dawn. The above April 4, 2011 UK government source in its section 3 Summary of Military Assets Deployed, listed the UK military assets as being committed to Operation Odyssey Dawn. 75.47.150.44 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer: The UK assets were not committed to Operation Odyssey Dawn. Committed would mean that AFRICOM had direct command of the forces without the any national command in between; which is not true for the UK and France. Other coalition members did place their assets under direct US command and since March 31st 6am all forces are under direct Unified Protector command. But from March 19th to 31st the UK and France kept their own chain of command and did not commit any forces to direct US command. noclador (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

as for sources: the MOD does supersede the House of Commons Library when it comes to military operations. noclador (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: in section 2.3 Command and Control of the source you give as for the "command and control of the British part of Operation Odyssey Dawn:" it cites 1:1 the same text as I cited above from the MOD press release. I hope with this you will now understand that I did not do any OR, but actually followed exactly the facts as stated by the UK MOD. noclador (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The simple problem is your interpretation that goes beyond what your source says, and is thus classic OR and is contradicted by what is explicitly stated in the source that I gave. 75.47.150.44 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

your source: Library of the House of Commons; my source Ministry of Defence. Which are the military experts? Please understand that the House of Commons library simply got it wrong: they write "The following countries committed military assets to Operation Odyssey Dawn" but also cite the MOD "The UK's deployed assets and personnel fall under the operational command of the Chief of Joint Operations, Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, who commands the Permanent Joint Headquarters, in Northwood." This clearly states that the UK assets were NOT part of the operational control of Odyssey Dawn. Therefore the UK (and French) assets do not belong into the list of assets here; as the UK assets were commanded separate from Odyssey Dawn. (However once they were in the theater of operations they came under command of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn for the tactical command in the theater of operations - but JTF OD is not the same as AFRICOM, which was responsible for strategic command). noclador (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So people who wrote, "UK sorties were under the operational command of the United States" in the Operation Ellamy page? Let's get this right--even now under NATO command, the UK MOD has a website titled [9] Operation Ellamy.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The UK confuses itself see this link [10]. "Operation Ellamy update" yet the next sentence says, "as part of the UK's continued support for NATO's Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR".Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is all a mess... the problem is that the whole thing was already a mess from the start... with the US not wanting to take command the UK and France charged ahead (especially the French), then the US got on board (when the French were already bombing) and the USA then split their command in two, making this a mission were 4 commands were doing their stuff. but at least they were coordinating. AFRICOM took the strategic command - especially the destruction of the air and air-defense assets and coordinated that with the UK; the French did what they did and coordinated mostly with Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn and the UK coordinated with from AFRICOM for strategic attacks (i.e. Tomahawk launches) and did their own thing when it came to tactical strikes... only since NATO took over there is a unified command. although the UK has no now operational control of the forces deployed in the theater they keep the Ellamy page open. as for the "UK sorties were under the operational command of the United States" it is half true and half wrong. the UK decided what assets to deploy and coordinated with AFRICOM on that but planned and deployed its operations alone; but when the planes reached the theater of operations, all planes came under Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn on-board USS Mount Whitney, which coordinated the operations over Libya to make sure the strike aircraft were deployed evenly in the areas of operation. Confusing? Yes- very! and that is why Italy, Norway ecc. insisted to vehemently that NATO take over and thus a clear chain of command be established. noclador (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see all operations--UK, US, French and Canadian as separate, evne the non-UK, US, French and Canadian forces, although they neve named (and it is not necessary) thier operations. It is just the military reponse to 1973. End of it.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Would either of you care to give a reliable source that lists the military assets in Operation Odyssey Dawn prior to hand over of command to NATO on March 31, 2011?. 75.47.150.44 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again go to the MOD's website. They call their effort as Operation Ellamy. That's all. Same with the French--distinctive name.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That response did not satisfy the request.

Noclador, Would you like to try? 75.47.150.44 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Simply put there are none. The British like to stick to the name Ellamy, but confuses us whenthey say they operations are in support of which ever operation. Ok? Same with the French--French especially will not anem their operation under American control. Why don't you try? And get a wiki account.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "Simply put there are none." - That is clearly false as demonstrated by the reliable source that I provided. 75.47.150.44 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Read your source again; read the MOD source again; both state that: "The UK's deployed assets and personnel fall under the operational command of the Chief of Joint Operations, Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, who commands the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood. On the air side, the UK's Joint Force Air Component Headquarters is controlling the UK's contribution to the air operation in conjunction with the coalition. Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell is the UK's Joint Force Air Component Commander; he is based with his staff at Ramstein with AFRICOM's Air Component HQ. On the maritime side, Rear Admiral Ian Corder, Commander Operations, is controlling the UK's contribution to maritime operations in conjunction with the coalition. He is based at Northwood." noclador (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

the section you wish to add the Operation Ellamy assets to "Deployed forces" is for the forces under direct operational command of AFRICOMs Operation Odyssey Dawn. UK and French assets are not under direct operational command; therefore they have their own articles. As said by the British ministry of defense British assets are under British operational command and are operated in conjunction with the coalition! Therefore please stop adding material that is factually wrong to article! thanks. noclador (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that UK forces cannot be considered part of Operation Odyssey Dawn if the UK’s deployed assets and personnel fall under the operational command of a UK commander, e.g. Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach? 75.47.150.44 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

as the name says "Operation Odyssey Dawn" is a military operation; as such there is a chain of command that goes down from AFRICOM to the units in the operation; but as above statement by the MOD says UK commands still kept operational control of UK assets thus making it a UK operation; the US had its own operation with its national assets under it's own chain of command; the MOD and the French kept a parallel chain of command to the AFRICOM chain of command. If the MOD would have put its assets under operational control of the Americans no British command would have been involved - and then the MOD would not stress repeatedly that all the UK forces were under UK operational command. Norway, Italy, Spain, ecc. placed their forces under the US operational command - without any national operational command involved, therefore as shown on the 2011 military intervention in Libya article they did not name their operations; as their forces were outside national command and control for the operation. If you look at 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia there are also two operation names: NATOs Operation Allied Force and Operation Noble Anvil, the second was for the US part of the operation as the US kept a separate chain of command. However in the case of Libya between March 19th and March 31 there were at least 3 chain of commands and thus 3 parallel operations ongoing (the fourth operation is the Canadian Operation MOBILE; which was a hybrid between the UK and i.e. the Italian approach.) Therefore UK assets and the French assets do not fall under Odyssey Dawn as both these countries assets had a different, and separate chain of command. noclador (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

From your answer, it appears that you feel that UK forces cannot be considered part of Operation Odyssey Dawn because the UK forces had their own command and control, i.e. chain of command. Am I understanding you correctly? 75.47.150.44 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not feel like that; I state without any feelings whatsoever the clear facts that Operation Odyssey Dawn, Opération Harmattan, Operation ELLAMY were different operations with different chains of command, thus with different wikipedia articles, where the assets used in each of these 3 distinct and separate operations are listed. noclador (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I can rephrase my question without using the word "feel" if that suits you better.

Is it your position that the UK forces cannot be considered part of Operation Odyssey Dawn because the UK forces had their own command and control, i.e. chain of command? 75.47.150.44 (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not considering anything; would you stop to insinuate that I consider, feel, ecc. There is ample sources that state as the sources above that the UK forces are not part of Operation Odyssey Dawn; i.e. more from the MOD:

• The Chief of the Defence Staff's Strategic Communications Officer, Major General John Lorimer, briefed the media this morning, Sunday 20 March 2011, on Operation ELLAMY, the UK's military action in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973
• The UK Armed Forces are operating under the name Operation ELLAMY. This is the UK operational name, other allies may operate under a different operational name; for example, the US have called this Operation ODYSSEY DAWN
• As we enter the fourth day of Operation ELLAMY, we are still conducting detailed assessment of the effects of military action against specific military targets.

and statements by AFRICOM that Odyssey Dawn is the US part of this intervention:

• For the first week of the international mission, U.S. General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) had the mission of coordinating the activities of coalition members over Libya.
• Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, commanded by Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical control of the U.S. portion of enforcement of UNSCR 1973.
• U.S. Africa Command is commanding U.S. military support for the international enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people.

Now if you can not provide more sources that are better than AFRICOM and the UK MOD and which say that Operation Ellamy and its assets are under/part of Odyssey Dawn, I suggest we end this discussion as there is overwhelming evidence that Operation Ellamy is NOT part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. noclador (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources that you provided indicate whether or not the UK forces are part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. You are going beyond what the sources say and concluding yourself that UK forces are not part of Odyssey Dawn. Please note the following from the section Using sources of the policy Wikipedia:No Original Research,

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context."

Also, when you gave excerpts from the source that I provided, you left out the part that preceded your excerpts, "An MoD spokesman earlier explained the command and control of the British part of Operation Odyssey Dawn:" 75.47.136.182 (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

MOD: "Operation ELLAMY, the UK's military action in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973]". AFRICOM: "Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, ... , is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical control of the U.S. portion of enforcement of UNSCR 1973." Has the thought that your source- the Library of the House of Commons- might be in error ever crossed your mind? AFRICOM and MOD are the experts and the ones actually directly involved; and they say Ellamy=UK's military action; OOD=US portion. Please find some more sources for your idea; prove you're right. noclador (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

or alternatively find a source that explains why, when all assets fell under one Operation, the coalition kept 3 parallel chains of command. If this was all one operation, why were the UK Joint Force Air Component Command and the Air Forces Africa Command of AFRICOM and Frances Air Defence and Air Operations Command all involved? and why were the UK Chief of Joint Operations and AFRICOMs commanding general and the Chief of the Defence Staff of France - who all have the same rank - involved? and if the British assets fell under Odyssey Dawn - why not the French? also find a source that explains how it comes that when NATO took over with Unified Protector suddenly AFRICOM, French staffs and British staffs stopped being involved - when before, as they were already one unified operation as you claim, they needed every command in triplet... I am just asking you to please provide more than one source for your claim. Thanks. noclador (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are classic violations of WP:NOR as I tried to inform you before with the excerpt from that policy. Your removal of material from the article was based on your violation of WP:NOR, and your remarks are clearly demonstrating that fact. Not a single one of the sources that you provided say whether or not UK forces are part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, whereas the the UK government source that I provided does.

Claire Taylor and Ben Smith (April 4, 2011) Military Operations in Libya House of Commons Library, www.parliament.uk (UK Parliament Website)

In section 3 of the above source, it gave a list of countries and their military assets that were committed to Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the part pertaining to the UK was used for the UK forces in the Deployed forces section, which you removed. 75.47.128.132 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion closely from the start. Due to the reasons given I back nocladors take on this, the sources given seem, in my mind, to be pretty clear on this issue. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As you mentioned, it is "nocladors take", not the take of a reliable source. The reliable source that I provided was from two authors of the International Affairs and Defence Section, UK House of Commons Library. The report was dated April 4, 2011. The authors had the benefit of all the reliable sources that were published before Apr 4, including the ones that Noclador referred to and they included a quote from the MoD that Noclador used as a basis for remarks. Their take was that the UK forces were part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. So the question is whether we use Noclador's take or the take of a reliable source. 75.47.128.132 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)