Talk:Operation Odyssey Dawn

created criticism section

i created the criticism section. delete if not needed.Zyon788 (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

this page is being heavily vandalized

tried fixing them but its becoming diffucult to do...need to semiprotect or somthingZyon788 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

what vandalism??? noclador (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry about that i wrote this when i misread the sentence about the threatening civilians.Zyon788 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem. Please continue to contribute to wikipedia and this article. noclador (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is being vandalized by clearly pro-Kadhafi editors with outrageously partisan sentences such as qualifying the no-fly-zone by the terms "no-life-zone". This article should be protected RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.18.250 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Or you can just revert the article like you do with all other cases of vandalism. Using ALL CAPS doesn't make your point any stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.102 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be semi-protected. There have been more than a few accusations without cited sources and consist of one-sided biases (specifically pro-Gadhafi) sides of the operation. Constantly reverting back to previous posts is just inefficient, especially if someone edits after said vandalism without recognizing it. The maintenance factor would deter from adding cited and beneficial information actually pertaining to the article.johnsmithy678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

this page is constantly being vandalized — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish forces

Spanish forces contributing to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 have been placed under the command of AFRICOM, hence can be included as part of Odyssey Dawn.[1] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to that article, Spanish aircraft have been placed under the control of the coalition of nations, commanded by US Gen. Ham. That is not the same as saying that they are part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, which is just the US part of the total operation. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Odyssey Dawn is the US part of the Operation and until a multi-national command has been set up Spanish (and other nations) assets come under direct US control, unless they have their own air-operations command (like the French and British). General Ham is commander of AFRICOM - a US unified combat command - and coalition forces are under this US command. Operation Odyssey Dawn includes the air operations by US commanded units - so i.e. the command can either send some US or some Italian planes on a SEAD mission - this is still all Operation Odyssey Dawn; as the name says Odyssey Dawn is about operations - not assets! noclador (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I still diagree. There is no indication from those countries that they placed their forces under US Command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From BBC News live:"Spain has voted overwhelmingly in favour of taking part in the coalition to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's request for formal approval of the move was adopted by 336 votes to 3, with one abstention. Spanish planes have already been patrolling Libyan airspace. Madrid has also sent a frigate and a submarine to join coalition forces." It does not say Spain places its forces under US Command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, You will need to supply a source for your conclusions.wp:nor All that the source said was that the aircraft were placed under coalition control, commanded by Gen. Ham.

Consider the case of a NATO or UN operation which is commanded by someone from a single country. One doesn't say that the operation is under the control of the country of the commander.

In any case, it looks like we may be having some problems with the title of this article and what it means. It's early and I expect they will be taken care of when they become more obvious. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish ministry of Defense says: "Yesterday afternoon, the Commander of the Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Jaime Domínguez Buj, reported that the JEMAD (note: this is the Chief of the Defense Staff: Jefe del Estado Mayor de la Defensa) transferred command of one in-flight refueling aircraft and four F-18 to the command of the international coalition, that is being hold by General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, whose permanent headquarters is in Stuttgart."[2] Also the Italian Air Force says contributing to it's to Operation Odyssey Dawn "contributo nell’ambito dell’operazione “Odyssey Dawn”". Even if you disagree that does not change the fact that the command structure is as I described, with the Spanish Plans being under direct US command. noclador (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All countries are still under US Command--AFRICOM--technically. So I don't undertand your point.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

the point is that between the planes and AFRICOM the British and French have an additional layer of national command. Which the other nations has chosen not to have! The only active commands guiding combat operations are currently a US, a British and a French command - with the American having overall command. All other nations have not set up their own command for the operations and fall under command of one of the three commands mentioned; as the USA has overall strategic command and tactical command in the theater of operation all coalition members without their own commands in place have placed their assets under the US command. noclador (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The news articles still do not say that explicitly. All forces still report up to AFRICOM for the moment. Adding non allied forces to a US Op without direct sources is not logical. I still contest.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 military intervention in Libya in the section forces committed--none of the links say the forces are directly under US command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

the point that you two do not understand is that Operation Odyssey Dawn is NOT the US contribution to the coalition; BUT the actually the operation currently being conducted by AFRICOM! From the Pentagon: "Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973." "the commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, which is the name of this operation, is Admiral Sam Locklear," [3]- this is like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, the only difference is that some nations as of now have chosen to have their OWN operations alongside the main operation! noclador (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A good example:

• Operation Desert Storm
  • Operation Granby were the British military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Opération Daguet were the French military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Operation FRICTION were the Canadian military operations during the Gulf War in 1991

and now:

• Operation Odyssey Dawn
  • Operation Ellamy are the British military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Opération Harmattan are the French military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Operation MOBILE are the Canadian military operations in the military intervention in Libya

and as during Operation Desert Storm smaller contingents are under direct command of the US main command. noclador (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One more time, the British, French, Canadians and others (non US) are responding individually to UNSCR 1973 and are not part of the American operation.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From Operation Granby "Operation Granby was the name given to the British military operations during the Gulf War in 1991. It covered both deployments in defence of Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait. These two parts of the war were identified separately by the Americans as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm." GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Grame for making that point that. This article is Americanised.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I Thought the US doesnt want to take the lead

So why are those forces considered as under US command?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

well, the USA currently HAS command and directs all the other air forces and deployed assets - in the case of the French and British the orders go through their national command chain (but not for the RAF planes in Gioa del Colle - also under direct US command) and for the other nations planes the orders come directly from the US command, but the USA wants to hand over this command authority as soon as possible. Because of the rapid deployment of the intervention, the only commands in place were US commands and so the USA was forced to take the lead; but as soon as a command is set up (around a week) the US will hand over command to the new command. noclador (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a coordinated mission. Just because the other countries dont have a name for their forces doesnt mean they are all under US command. UK forces in a way are under US command--both US commanders outrank the UK's senior commander.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are under US command - the Canadians have a name, but also are under US command; the only nation that does a lot of it's own planning is France. As for Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the English planes in Goia del Colle - the are directly subordinated to AFRICOM. The French and British units (those that depart from England) have a national layer of command between AFRICOM and the actual combat assets. noclador (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As you wish - but the command structure is as follows:

• Africom
  • United States Naval Forces Europe
    • assets directly subordinated (US + coalition units)
  • French Air Defence and Air Operations Command
    • French assets
  • British Chief of Joint Operations
    • British assets

noclador (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

as for the future: the French want this structure:

• French or British national command
  • all assets

and Italy wants this structure (to which Turkey is massively opposed)

• multi-national NATO command
  • all assets

noclador (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No source!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From Whitehouse.gov (hopefully a reliable source for whether Obama thinks he is in charge)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/22/president-libya-we-have-already-saved-lives

Question: " ...Can you today still assure the American people that the U.S. will be in charge for only a matter of several -- a few more days? ..."

Answer: "... I have absolutely no doubt that we will be able to transfer control of this operation to an international coalition...."

So the United States is the one in control right now. -- Avanu (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That still doesnt make non-British, French and Canadian forces under US OD!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn is Separate from all other operations!!

"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." from 2011 military intervention in Libya From MOD: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/LibyaOperationEllamy.htm No where does it say that the British are subordinating their Ellamy Op under Odessy Dawn Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, once again - Ellamy and Harmattan are separate, the OTHER nations assets are under Odyssey Dawn. noclador (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is confusing wrt to the main article 2011 military intervention in Libya and the British, French and Canadian ops which simply state and I quote "The United States' counterpart to this is Operation Odyssey Dawn" it does not says The United States' and other non British, French and Canandian counterpart to this is Operation Odyssey DawnOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Norways planes are under US command: [4] as are all other units except for the British and French assets. EOD. noclador (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again you are misleading readers of the French, British and Canadian ops. If all allied-exlusing UK, France and Canada operations fall under the dominating role of US Command, why is your article lacking information of action by all allied-exlusing UK, France and Canada and only including US forces actions?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." If you continue to insist that Odyssey Dawn is the whole military US dominated/led involved, then this setenence from the 2011 military intervention in Libya is out of place. Who is right?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 2011 military intervention in Libya is wrong. It misinterpreted its source on the topic. The Wikipedia article says,

"The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile for the Canadian particiaption and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the U.S. commanded operations Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn in the theater of operations.[15]"

[15] "Gunfire, explosions heard in Tripoli". CNN. Retrieved 20 March 2011.

The only mention of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the source [15] is,

"The salvo, in an operation dubbed 'Odyssey Dawn,' was meant 'to deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people,' said Gortney."

When it says "dubbed Odyssey Dawn" it is not clear whether Odyssey Dawn is the name for just the US part or for the operation of the coalition.

Another source is more clear,[5]

"Coalition forces launched 'Operation Odyssey Dawn' ..."

"U.S. military forces are on the leading edge of the coalition operation..."

And from another source,[6]

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."

75.47.133.120 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If non-UK, French and Canadian Forces are under US Command

This article does not depict the accurate Daily actions of those non-UK, French and Canadian Forces. Get it rightOther dictionaries are better (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, lets add these - I can take the Italian participation, which nations can you do? noclador (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Article preamble - all related operations

For the sake of following a good standard, is there a good reason why the three related operations (UK, France and Canada) all mention the other three related operations in their article preamble but the US does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents = United States?

Why is Belligerents = United States in the infobox? That's just not right. It's a bunch of nations, together. What's the difference who's operationally commanding the assembled forces? -- Y not? 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is just about the United States' contribution to the no fly zone. BurtAlert (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So why are there all these other countries who have contributed men and planes to the effort recited in the body? -- Y not? 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation names

Here are how the operation names are defined by the ministries of defense of the countries that originated the names.

U.S. Department of Defense

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."[7]

"Coalition forces launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” today to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country’s ruler."[8]

French Ministry of Defense

"Samedi 19 mars 2011, sur ordre du président de la République, le chef d’état-major des armées a lancé l’opération Harmattan , nom de la participation française à l’engagement militaire international d’opérations aériennes pour protéger la population libyenne contre les attaques des forces du colonel Kadhafi.[9]

Babelfish translation - "Saturday March 19, 2011, on order of the president of the Republic, the chief of staff of the armies launched the operation Harmattan, name of the French participation in the international military engagement of air operations to protect the Libyan population against the attacks from the forces of colonel Kadhafi.[10]

UK Ministry of Defence

"General Lorimer was speaking as he briefed the media earlier this afternoon on Operation ELLAMY, the name for the United Kingdom's military support to United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973."[11]

Canada Department of National Defense

"Operation MOBILE is the Canadian Forces’ participation in the multinational response to the continuing crisis in Libya."[12]

In summary, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the international coalition's operation, Operation Harmattan is the French participation, Operation Ellamy is the UK participation, and Operation Mobile is the Canadian participation. 75.47.133.120 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense this is taking words and mincing them up.When you note the Admiral briefing the reporters, he did not brief them on the coalition's involvement--he told them everything about the Tomahawk strikes (albeit including UK participation). He did not mention non UK, French or Canadian Forces--even in his subsequent briefings and the US AFRICOM pages DO NOT show reports of non-American activity. So while you all state that OD is on top and overall in command of non-UK, French and Canadian Forces, the US defence pages (I don't care I spell it this way) themselves do not acknowledge it so! They only talk about US military acitiviies and not non-UK, French and Canadian activities that you claim are under the OD.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This just in from the BBC: "Operations are being carried out under US control, says Mr Hague, but Britain wants to see a "transition to NATO command and control as quickly as possible"." noclador (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The full quote from Hague as per Al Jazeera "These coalition operations are currently under United States command, but we want them to transition to NATO command and control as quickly as possible." Al Jazeera Live Blog at 3:15pm noclador (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From BBC since you quoted from it [13]

"Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain and Qatar are also involved in the military action, but they have not given their operations a name. They haven't said why.

Greece is also giving "supportive assistance" and it has not given its operation a name either."

It therefore also says the other nations--non UK, French and Canadians--are involving themselves but NOT as part of OD. Unlike the other articles, you guys are pushing your point that OD leads all non-UK, French and Canadian forces.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The news media have been giving contradictory information about what the operation names apply to, so I went to the statements of the ministries of defense which are the origins of the operation names and thus authoritative, unless there is some disagreement between the ministries, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Note the interesting point made in the BBC ref mentioned above, "For a single country contribution one word is used...". Operation Dawn is obviously not a one word name, whereas Harmattan, Ellamy, and Mobile are. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is still only from one source which is not fully justifiedOther dictionaries are better (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

lead paragraph II

aaargh,... why always put errors in the lead paragraph :( "The US has attempted to hand over operational command of the operation to NATO (whilst keeping political and strategic command in the hands of a small group of nations), but these efforts have failed so far." The US has not attempted to do that, it wishes to hand over command as soon as possible and to any command that is ready to take over command. NATO, the French, a new command - whoever; also the idea with NATO having command of the operation and a small group of nations taking political command is an idea, but as yet not agreed upon or thought out. There is a summit about that on Tuesday in Paris, until then the US will command the operation. noclador (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead & codename

"Operation Odyssey Dawn is the code name for the international military operation in Libya." This simply isn't right, "Operation Odyssey Dawn" is the name for the US part of the operation. Some other countries might be using this name. But it's not a name for the whole operation, as there simply isn't an actual unified operation. Also, why the ugly note in the references section, why not simply create a small subsection for the name like we usually do?--Sloane (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name for the coalition operation, not just the US part. See the talk page section Operation names.

2) I think it's a nice note. The name topic doesn't seem that important, compared to other topics. You seemed to believe that there is usually a subsection for the name in articles like this. So to check that out, I looked at the See also links at the bottom of the article and I didn't see any Name subsections in those articles. 75.47.139.245 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources there - other than American ones, more ambiguously worded - are just saying that the respective nations are participating in the international intervention in Libya, not a word about operation Odyssey Dawn.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement from the U.S. Department of Defense is unambiguous.

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."

Statements from the other ministries of defense were quoted to clarify that their operation names were for their respective participations, rather than for the coalition.

In passing, I wouldn't be surprised if and when the coalition operation transitions to a phase commanded by someone other than the U.S., that the name of the operation will change. 75.47.138.154 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That is just one source from the US and you didnt sign you signatureOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? It deals only with the American point of view, and therefore, the American nomenclature only.

Yes, for their participations in the intervention, no relation to the 'Odyssey Dawn' mentioned.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The statements of the US, UK, French, and Canadian ministries of defense, who are the origins of the operation names, are authoritative, unless there is some disagreement between them, which doesn't seem to be the case. It appears that you dispute the correctness of the US Dept of Defense calling the coalition operation Odyssey Dawn, but none of the other ministries of defense dispute it. To conclude that they dispute it because it wasn't mentioned in their statements is a reach, especially since none of the ministries besides the US have offered any name for the coalition operation. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they are dealing with their participation in the international action, not in 'Odyssey Dawn'. What's so difficult to understand here? --Hon-3s-T (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The above note of Hon-3s-T is out of chronological order and it is well answered by the messages below that preceded it in time. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

After more consideration I think there is a middle ground that correctly reflects what is in the sources. As the US Dept of Defense said, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the coalition operation. However, we should add that it is the US name for the coalition operation. So far, strictly speaking, we haven't seen that the other ministries of defense have adopted it as the name for the coalition operation. So the lead sentence can be changed by adding "US" as a modifier of the term "code name" so that the relevant part of the lead sentence becomes "US code name". It is still the name for the coalition operation, not just the US participation, but is the name given to it by the US. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Again it is minicing things so that the egg is the key before the chicken can come about. If this is so, as based on your logic, then the French, UK and Canadians do not consider OD as what it is but simple their, and I emphasise their, operations which are merely their commitment to UNSCR 1973. Nothing related to a total US-led operation--which exist only in the detail structure cause of US Hegemonic dominance. Thne for the non-UK, French and Canadian forces, just because they have not (and it is not complusory) named any operation name doesnt necessary lead to them being under US Command see again this news report [14] and this specific line "Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain and Qatar are also involved in the military action, but they have not given their operations a name."Furtheremore, This article merely talks about the operations of US forces. IF they (the non British, French, and Canadian forces) are considered under US Command, there should be evidence that the op directives are given out by US commanders. In the absence of this, the non British, French, and Canadian forces are merely fufilling the UNSCR 1973 and NOT led by US OD.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The simple truth is that the US Dept. of Defense (DOD) invented the name Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the DOD defines it as "the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973". To claim that it is only the US participation, contradicts the definition by the source of the name. Specifying that it is the "US code name" correctly reflects the situation and acknowledges that it is US nomenclature. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How thne does this line "The British' counterpart to this is Operation Ellamy, the Canadian counterpart is Operation MOBILE and the French counterpart is Opération Harmattan." be relevant. If it is a counterpart means they are parallel operations. Taking it as a US code name, how then are the other UK, French and Canadian operations "counterparts" or are they part of or is it under the US umbrella or is it I don't know what...

PS: Why aren't you using a Wiki account? Just wonderingOther dictionaries are better (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The unsourced statement of the lead that you are referring to has been replaced with the statement below that is supported by the respective ministries of defence sources.

"The British name for their military support of the coalition is Operation Ellamy, the Canadian participation is Operation MOBILE and the French participation is Opération Harmattan."

75.47.128.255 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is not backed by sources given, as they're mentioning their participation in the UN resolution 1973 enforcement, not in the coalition action. Unless you are apt for some original research.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Its fine. Not synth OR. It's a good accurate summary of the sources. Using the exact wording of sources is discouraged as plagiarism, unless you want to just give quotes, then that's poor form too. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the formulation "American code name for the coalition action" is just fine; but the sources given clearly did not cover the subsumption of their respective national operations under "operation Odyssey Dawn".--Hon-3s-T (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the first part of your message, thnx for acknowledging that Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the coalition's operation. You might want to correct the misinterpretation in the corresponding articles elsewhere that you worked on that incorrectly indicate it is only the US part.
• In the second part of your message, you haven't shown that there is a problem and the remarks of my previous message, re summarizing and not reproducing text from the source in a verbatim way, still applies. However, if you can produce a better summary of the relevant material in those authoritative sources, please show it here. Thnx. For reference, the relevant material was shown in the first message of the section Operation names. 75.47.143.130 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

From UK MOD:

What is the chain of command?

This operation is currently under US command with high-profile French and UK involvement, as well as close co-ordination with a range of other countries including Arab states.
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].

All ground attacks are therefore under US command, including missions by UK, France and Canada (who have their own mission names). The FAQ suggests that "Odyssey Dawn" is specific to US forces only. That other countries are conducting missions under US command does not preclude them from having operational names different from OD. Kelvinc (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn is the coalition operation. As mentioned in your quote, the operation is under US command and the US is using Odyssey Dawn. It does not say that Odyssey Dawn is specific to US forces only. A statement that is more clear about what Operation Odyssey Dawn is, comes from the inventor of the name, the US Dept. of Defense,

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."[15]

That statement can be compared to the one from the UK Ministry of Defense which limits its operation name ELLAMY to just the UK's actions,

"General Lorimer was speaking as he briefed the media earlier this afternoon on Operation ELLAMY, the name for the United Kingdom's military support to United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973."[16]

75.47.143.130 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Whts code name for NATO mission?

Does anyone know what the code name will be for the the NATO coordinated action commanded by royal canadian air force lt gen Charles Bouchard (ie in additional to Operation Unified Protector)?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to a NATO fact sheet,

"As of 25 March 2011 NATO is leading the No-Fly Zone operation over Libya, as part of Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR, the Alliance’s response to United Nations Security Resolution (UNSCR) 1973."[17]

As NATO gets more parts under its command, they will also become part of Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Unified Protector started as NATO enforcement of the arms embargo, but has now taken on the NFZ too. SACEUR explained it in his blog.[18] Extreme care will have to be taken in what is now added to this article and what is added to Operation Unified Protector. ShipFan (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

question about the outcome section

should we only tell about the immediate outcome from the operation or should we add what has happened overall?Zyon788 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

AC-130s and A-10s

Vice Admiral Gortney confirmed that AC-130s and A-10s were used "over the weekend" but no specifics.[19] ShipFan (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO command of NFZ

With NATO taking over enforcement of the NFZ, which US and coalition forces need to be noted as being transferred to Operation Unified Protector? ShipFan (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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[20] 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 ...” .[21] 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)

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").[22] 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).[23] This does not support and indeed contradicts the GlobalSecurity.org claims. ShipFan (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)