Washington Post:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen provided an update regarding the military situation in Libya. “I would say that the no-fly zone is effectively in place,” said Mullen, outlining the ultimate goal as being threefold: successfully establishing the no-fly zone, arresting Gaddafi’s ability to massacre his own people, and making possible the entry of humanitarian assistance into Libya. “While the United States leads this right now,” said Mullen, “we expect in the next few days to hand that leadership off to a coalition-led operation, and the United States recede somewhat to the background in support.”
So where do we stand? What do we hope to achieve? Are we leading the pack or are we part of a coalition? Who is the boss? Who pays the bills? Humanitarian assistance sort of says ‘boots on the ground’ doesn’t it? Are we trying to take Gaddafi out or not? If not, then why are we bombing his compound?
All of this is very confusing. Don’t we think most wars will be over in a week or 2?
Someone in authority here — not sure who now, maybe Mullen himself — emphasized in a media interview that we are NOT purposefully targeting Qaddafi’s headquarters. He didn’t explain why. It is, indeed, very confusing. And the man in charge of Libya is a Hydra. I suspect the end of him may only come from the inside, when those who are now with him start to think of their own potential fates and not his. It’s a roll of the dice. You put the pressure on bigtime and you have two possibiities: (1) those who support him now cave and leave him dangling alone; or (2) he uses the foreign presence to rally those around him to a clarion call of Western bullying. Looks to me like the Arab League is already cracking and questioning the targeting of the coalition forces.
It really is confusing. I simply don’t think I have an opinion. And I don’t mind that I am not being told everything.
I tend to agree with Wolverine on this one. I am very concerned that the “mission” does not seem well defined and I am also veryconcerned on the lack of suppoort for Arab nations. As I havce said many times, the Arabs are more than glad to let someone else do the bleeding for them and we seem to be all too ready to accomodate them–much of it for the sake of OIL.
I wonder if President Obama has a reply for this critic…..
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” -Senator Barack Obama, 12/20/2007
Given that a “no fly” zone is an act of war, and only Congress has the power to declare war, then,
WHY has Obama not been impeached for this obvious abuse of Executive power?
Americans MUST NOT tolerate Presidents from either Party who will abuse the Constitution, especially by waging unauthorized wars.
Now is the time to kill the monster Gadhafi and avenge the bombing of
Pan Am 103. Unless, of course, you think it is OK to blow up hundreds of
innocent Americans on a civilian airliner.
Here’s a good summary of events leading to President Obama’s change of heart from opposing intervention in Libya to backing it enthusiastically:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war
Like Moon, I’m still thinking this one through and have not decided whether I agree with this extensive intervention or not. I wrote in this blog earlier that President Obama should act decisively, and take out Qadaffi. Using cruise missiles and other remote control weaponry to degrade Libyan military power is also appropriate. That would have left the field open for the Libyan rebels to win their own war, and prevented any major damage to the oil production and shipment resources.
Unfortunately, the Administration has stated clearly that Qadaffi is not a target. Why not? Also, this intervention is involving U.S. air power (i.e., our pilots) extensively. Why? President Obama has gone all-in, far beyond taking out Qadaffi and ending the threat to Libya’s oil resources, and I need to know why.
I have two major concerns.
First, the U.N. “authorized” this intervention on the basis of what it considered violations of human rights. By acting in response to the U.N.’s decision, the United States has essentially validated this process, and acknowledged the U.N.’s jurisdiction to make such determinations and recommend remedies. I don’t like the precedent this action sets. What happens in the future if a majority in the U.N. determines that the United States is in violation of human rights somehow or another, for example by deporting criminal illegal aliens or maintaining the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo? I support both of these policies, as do most Americans, and do not consider them a violation of human rights in any way. Do we now have to defer to the U.N.’s jurisdiction and enact policies detrimental to the interests of the American people?
Second, I have never been comfortable with expending American blood and treasure for any reason other than to protect the security of our country and its people. Nation-building, global human rights, forcing other nations to implement our definition of democracy, or any of the other major neo-con interventionist rationales don’t persuade me. Recall the results of the disaster in Somalia where we had no direct national interests at stake.
In Afghanistan, we were going after those responsible for September 11. I’ll defer the argument as to whether or not we should still be there. In Iraq, we were eliminating the supposed clear and present danger of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, or so the intelligence community said and was believed by everyone including the Bush administration, the Clintons, the Kennedys, John Kerry, Al Gore and virtually everyone.
What is our direct national interest in Libya? Two percent of the world’s oil supply, most of which goes to Europe anyway?
I’m keeping an open mind about the intervention in Libya at this point, but am very skeptical. I would be one-hundred percent in favor of finding out where Qadaffi is, and lobbing a cruise missile in his lap, along with his senior leadership, and degrading Libyan military power. Our goal seems to be, however, bombing Libya into becoming a Jeffersonian democracy. That’s a pipedream that will never come true.
@NTK,
Jefferson probably wished he had a few patriot missles to send to Tripoli.
@Tyler
When was our last conflict when Congress actually declared war? I know that Vietnam was never declared. I don’t think our recent wars were declared either. Do you want to call for the impeachment of about 15 presidents?
Someone mentioned the Arab states – yes, where are they? We’re training their pilots? But they’re not involved? I know Gadaffi is a bad guy – but what is the purpose? Any one catch the Farrakahn clips from yesterday?
Congress last declared war during WWII – Japan, Germany and Italy.
I’m sure all of the confusion could be easily cleared up if the administration just had their foreign relations expert, Joe Biden, explain everything.
@Juturna, I heard Farrakahn.
I don’t know where the Arab states are. Probably not taking a strong stand.
@you lie, why don’t you explain it to us all. You seem to know everything.
Well Moon, the only thing that I know is that this needs to be explained by an “expert” on the matter. Who is better qualified or suited for that than Joe Biden, this administrations foreign policy expert?
He even has his own theme song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkth2eubj_g
@you lie, is that the troll song?
Urban Dictionary-
Trolling def:
Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it’s the internet and, hey, you can.
(or so you think)
Participating as one parrtner among several to uphold a no fly zone is nothing like our involvement in iraq or afganastan.
All I’m saying Moon is that it’s obvious that Joe Biden, our foreign policy expert, was in on the ground floor with what ever decision was made about the extent of our involvement in Libya.
So shouldn’t the guy making all of the important foreign policy decisions for our country be the one talking about it and explaining exactly what is going on?
Are you calling me a ‘prick’ now for even suggesting Joe Biden talk about it? I just don’t get it to be honest, is he or is he not Obama’s foreign policy expert? Why am I a ‘prick’ for wanting the expert on the situation to talk about it?
I didnt call you a prick. I gave you the dictionary definition of trolling which sounds like what you were doing.
Your comments added nothing to the on-going conversation.
Each tomahawk costs $1.5 million. Holy cow.
That’s when you hope you don’t miss. I like the commander’s name.
@Big Dog That does not seem to be stated goal of this intervention.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked about the limited goals of this campaign, which are basically to support the UN resolution of keeping Gaddafi from killing his own people, as well as supporting the humanitarian effort. When asked if the potential was there for Gaddafi to remain in power, Mullen replied: “That’s certainly, potentially, one outcome.” So what is the point? Or will the goal become one grand moving target? If we suddenly decide that it’s all about going after Gaddafi to finally avenge Lockerbie, after 23 years, doesn’t that just smack a LITTLE bit like the accusations that George W. Bush went after Saddam to avenge Daddy? Never mind the fact that Saddam and sons were at least as masterful as Gaddafi in the trail of torture and death that they left behind.
@Emma
Which is exactly why I want to hear from Joe Biden on this subject. If we are bombing Libya without going after Gaddafi then what the hell are we doing? Our nations top ranking foreign policy expert should clear this situation up.
Not to mention that some Democrats are now questioning the legality/constitutionality of this whole operation as well. Some even calling for Obama to be impeached over this.
@hello I’m trying to understand how killing people will stop Gaddafi from killing people, especially if he is left in power.
And if it really is all about oil, then let’s go to Alaska and DRILL, BABY, DRILL!
(that last pithy comment was just for you, Juturna)
@Elena
Participating in a no fly zone exercise is HOW we got started in Iraq. Also, we are running the show in Libya. So, while the press is spinning that we are just one among many, we are in charge, with allies.
That sounds EXACTLY like Iraq.
Again, since this is NOT a theater in the “war on terror,” shouldn’t there be Congressional authority? What’s our exit strategy? When the rebels win? When Daffy Duck’s air force is destroyed? When he’s dead? Accidentally of course.
I still don’t understand why England, Italy, and France could not enforce a no-fly zone on their own. Have they let their militaries degrade that much? If they feel there is no threat, then why is NATO still around? Do we have to do everything?
@Emma – you lost me – Did I say something about Palin and oil? Pithy is one of my favorite words to use when possible.
We get very little oil from Libya – so that can’t be the point. Are we going to just bomb everyone that has oil and then under the guise of “spreading democracy” try to make them our friends to keep us supplied with oil? I ust as soon give something up, keep PBS and not spend $200M on a Saturday night. Makes Boehners $61M effort look like a waste of time.
Shouldn’t more investment into abiotic oil research take place? I read that the depletion of the gulf oil wells is so slow that support for this theory (that not all oil is from fossil fuels). When I’ve been in Europe most places shut off water and heat at nights and at scheduled times during the day. It’s a way of life that we might consider.
@Juturna I couldn’t resist after your comment yesterday about “reduction comments.” The devil made me do it.
@Cargo, as I recall, Iraq started with a million mile convoy crossing Kuwait into Iraq, going miles across the desert, and the rhetoric changing from WMD to the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This was after a little shock and awe. I don’t remember the time table.
Hopefully we will be able to discuss this issue without finger pointing.
Hmmmm, bombing a country while leaving that leader in power….
Helping rebel forces but not ensuring that they win…..
Being against intervention before being for it….without even discussing why….
smart diplomacy….We are in the very best of hands.
@Moon-howler
We were enforcing a no-fly zone for years after Desert Storm before we invaded in 2003. Hostilities never actually ceased because he shot at our aircraft constantly.
Potential situation. The NATO no-fly zone leaves Benghazi and a few other rebel strongholds safe from retaliation by Qaddafi’s military. But Qaddafi remains in control of most of Libya because UN and NATO policy is not to take him out. Sort of a territorial stalemate. Where does it go from there I ask?
Suppose then that the rebels, their courage bolstered by NATO no-fly protection, decide once again to go on the offensive? Then what do we do? Do we become the virtual air and naval wings of the rebel forces, protecting them even as they meet Qaddafi’s forces in battle? Then we are really in the middle of a civil war, UN declaration or no declaration about just protecting civilians. When do those rebels stop being civilians and become warfighters? This one has got big problems written all over it — so long as Qaddafi is still there.
@Emma – get it now. I’m frustrated about the mission of this country and what is being done with my tax dollars….. I’m frustrated by the sound bites that have replaced discussion…. And I just can’t fathom spending $24M on a Saturday night. We have schools in the US that could use a fix, kids going to bed hungry here and kids being shot at in gang wars and the absolute horrors of child abuse that surround us and are not by any means limited by ethnicity or economics.
You betcha makes me cringe. Blatant business buyouts of government sicken me as does blatant business hostage situations. I prefer serious and at this point I could care less which party comes up with serious as long as someone does. A smattering of altruism would be nice as well.
@NTK–“In Afghanistan, we were going after those responsible for September 11. I’ll defer the argument as to whether or not we should still be there. In Iraq, we were eliminating the supposed clear and present danger of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, or so the intelligence community said and was believed by everyone including the Bush administration, the Clintons, the Kennedys, John Kerry, Al Gore and virtually everyone.”
Are you still falling for this male bovinre merde? You seem to have forgotten that most of those involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.
I don’t believe we actually know why we are in either country any more except to say that we are still there because we don’t remember why we are there and can’t figure out how to get out.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-21/the-horrible-libya-hypocrisies/?om_rid=CgCwBH&om_mid=_BNiJVmB8Zzy9sC
Leslie Gelb’s bona fides are good enough for me. This article says it about as well as it has been said to-date.
@George S. Harris
Most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, but al Quaeda was based in and operated from Afghanistan. Even President Obama stated as such during the 2008 campaign, and proclaimed his support for that war. We can debate whether or not we should still be there, but the original reason for going was sound.
WMD in Iraq was one of the biggest intelligence failures of all time. Did you see the “60 Minutes” report recently on the one scumbag upon whose word the intelligence community (ours, the Germans, and many others) based their conclusion that Saddam had WMD? At the time, virtually everyone in both parties considered the intelligence analysis and conclusions correct. President Clinton and Vice-President Gore during their administration thought the same thing. We know now that the analysis was wrong, but eliminating WMD in the hands of a madman who would likely use it, or allow it to be used by others, against the United States was a vaild reason to employ US military force.
@George S. Harris #32
Gelb points out how incidents such as Libya unite Neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. It unites other strange bedfellows as well on the other side, such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Paul ran on a foreign policy platform in 2008 of minding our own business, and Kucinich is adamantly anti-war.
I’m still waiting to hear what our business is in this level of intervention.
We have absolutely no business in Libya. I see it as a no-win situation no matter what happens.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368633/Libya-U-S-Air-Force-gun-crew-welcomed-Libyans-crash-night-coalition-air-raids.html
Oops.
Six Libyan villagers are recovering in hospital after being shot by American soldiers coming in to rescue the U.S. pilots whose plane crash-landed in a field.
The helicopter strafed the ground as it landed in a field outside Benghazi beside the downed U.S. Air Force F-15E Eagle which ran into trouble during bombing raid last night.
And a handful of locals who had come to greet the pilots were hit – among them a young boy who may have to have a leg amputated because of injuries caused by a bullet wound.
http://theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/air-strikes-on-libya/100031/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12826744
Who are these rebels we are supporting? When it’s all over, how do we know they will not embark upon a pogrom all of their own? And if the goal is not to eliminate Gaddafi, then what will prevent him from carrying out a massive slaughter himself?
It seems we got lured into this by the promise of “international consensus” and this insane need for European love and adulation. The sorry reality is that we are likely doing the dirty work for France, which has much bigger vested interest in toppling Gaddhafi. The French will be more than happy to sit back and let us do their dirty work, while they nod their heads and reassure us that we didn’t start it all and that we are all in this together.
We weren’t attacked, threatened or even provoked. What the hell are we doing over there?
Didn’t you love that speech that President Obama gave to announce our attack on a Libya? It was a classic. Like the Presidents before him, when he sent troops in harm’s way, he was eloquent in his statement. Poetry. Did you see it?
Yeah, me neither.
Had a lot to say about soccer, though. We have that going for us.
I think the unifying factor might be ‘if Obama does it, it sucks.’
If he stayed out, he would have also been at fault. Bottom line: there is no winning.
Sometimes that IS the case.
So, when that’s the case, a leader decides on a course of action and presents his argument for it. And then does it. I would have have respected a decision that said, “NO. We not going in and here is why…..” OR one that said, ” YES, we in and helping the rebels because…..”
This halfway committed crap is what everybody hates. He’s the freaking President of the USA. He, like it or not, is the leader of the free world. He needs to act like it. I may hate and disagree with what he does, but he’ll, at the least, be LEADING.
Did you respect that decision about some other areas that people were pushing Obama to do? @cargo
I feel that regardless of what he did, he would be criticized.
I am going to sit back and watch…wait and see approach. Not that there is a lot of choice…..
Why Libya and not Bahrain? Why Libya and not Egypt? Why do we shake our index fingers at some despotic countries and lob missiles at others? And in this case, it did suck because Obama did it, Obama-style–complete with chest thumping demands for Gaddafi to step down, “international consensus” instead of going to the representatives of the American people, and then giving the perception of detaching himself by flying off to the Mediterranean. And his own commanders seem confused as to the actual goal of the intervention.
And please don’t ask where I was when Bush did XYZ. I was utterly opposed to the actions in Iraq, and remain so. But it is fair to ask what is the difference between bringing down Saddam Hussein, a brutal, torturing dictator, and bringing down Gaddafi, a brutal, torturing dictator?
I thought that Obama said “not one US troop will be on the ground in Libya”…
Camp Lejeune Marines To Libya: http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
Gee, sounds to me like he LIED! And people wonder why You Lie is my avatar.
Well, to get specific, he lied about no troops being in Libya 2,200 times that we know of so far.
Wow, according to 2007 Joe Biden… he is going to move to impeach Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA
The issue is this new war we have been thrust into has nothing to do with defending this nation. I’m compelled to pay for the defense of this nation and I’m fine with that. This isn’t that. I don’t care if whom the president is. What this particular president did and is doing is virtually the same as what his predecessor did. You can argue degrees, but the point is the same. This is against the constitution and this president condemned the last for doing the same.
After thinking about this whole situation I’ve come to a conclusion. All this time I have thought that Joe Biden, our top ranking foreign policy expert, was a complete dunce, a virtual gaffe factory. I must admit that I was completely wrong!
This guy is BRILLIANT! Being the foremost foreign policy expert in the administration he actually convinced O-bomb-ya to take this particular course of action with Libya. The sheer brilliance comes because according to Bidens own words he will now seek O-bomb-ya’s impeachment making Biden our new President! Never again will I ever underestimate Joe Biden.
Tingles: If the President of the United States launched an attack on Iran that would be an impeachable offense.
Joe Biden: I stand by that comment, the reason I made that comment was it was a warning. I don’t say those things lightly Chris, you have known me a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for a long time. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law, this is something that I know…….. THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY TO WAR AGAINS A NATION OF 70 MILLION PEOPLE (80 million in Libya) UNLESS WE ARE ATTACKED OR UNLESS THERE IS PROOF WE ARE ABOUT TO BE ATTACKED.
That says one of two things… either Joe Biden is BRILLIANT in his scheme to impeach O-bomb-ya or he is yet another example of the constant lies coming out of this administration. Which is it? I give him the benefit of the doubt and think he just wants to be president.
No plan….no clue….no birth certificate.
Does anyone really expect anything better?
@marinm
Get off the birther issue marinm–you’re beating a dead horse.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51780.html
Barack Obama: Libyan air campaign could last
Years ago Ella Fitzgerald recorded a song called “Undecided”. The first two verses went like this:
First you say you do, and then you don’t
And then you say you will, and then you won’t
You’re undecided now
So what are you gonna do?
Now you wanna play, and then it’s no
And when you say you’ll stay, that’s when you go
You’re undecided now
So what are you gonna do?
It may have been about romance but it sure seems to fit the situation right now.
@Need to Know
I’m sorry but there is no justification for two 10 year wars. I didn’t see the “60 Minutes” piece but followed closely in the runup to the war. I still say that Colin Powell was the Judas Goat in the whole mess. He doubted the WMD all along but went before the UN to make our case. It was an intelligenced failure but it was a failure manufactured by Cheney and others and getting more than 4,000 young Americans killed for this stupid mistake should haved meant that a whole bunch of people should have gone to jail and didn’t–they’re praised for their stupidity.