Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that Washington did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power. Opening up the possibility of a rift between the US and Britain and France if the Gaddafi regime does not crumble quickly, he said: “The goals are limited. It’s not about seeing him go. It’s about supporting the United Nations resolution which talked about eliminating his ability to kill his own people.” Adm Mullen said it was “certainly potentially one outcome” that the mission could succeed while leaving Col Gaddafi in power. – Libya: Mike Mullen admits stalemate could leave Gaddafi in charge
That’s the headline at Huffington Post. We’re trying…
Ah, winning. It’s the Charlie Sheen theory of modern warfare.
We’re going to “succeed” by leaving Gadhafi in charge, because when Pres. Obama said he had to go he was just speaking euphemistically and that Gadhafi’s policies had to change towards his people. Got it?
A hand off of the mission to NATO or an Anglo-Franco lead is suggested to happen very soon, according to SecDef Gates. All we can do is hope, because Operation Odyssey Dawn is obviously a crap shoot.
Evidently people are also just waking up to the reality that when you let fly 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles and all sorts of other dogs of war fly civilians are going to die. What part of war don’t people understand?
The whole notion of Obama waiting to get the Arab League, but also the UNSC, to sign on to a no-fly zone was actually about having an international military coalition so Arabs would have real skin in the game. Instead we’ve got some mouth piece organization who nodded their approval without any military involvement, which has now led to a statement separating Arab nations from the U.S.-led mission in Libya, while blaming “international strikes” for hitting civilians. Amr Moussa also doesn’t want them to be part of a NATO umbrella, you know, because that’s sensitive. Gates saying there is “some sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella.”
Who could have guessed this would happen?
The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths. The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed. Moussa has told reporters Sunday that “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives.” He says “what we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.” U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.
Pres. Obama managed to hide on every other issue, leaving others to take the fall, but not on Libya. He’s now got his Bush-esque war, with no end in sight. He’s a real war time president.
Marc Ambinder wrote a piece yesterday on the decision making. One section featured Clinton:
It was important to the U.S. that Libyans and the world understand that this coalition of the willing was more than a U.S. rhetorical construct. An hour before bombing began Saturday, Clinton spoke to the press in Paris. Asked why military action was in America’s interest, she gave three reasons and implied a fourth. A destabilizing force would jeopardize progress in Tunisia and Egypt; a humanitarian disaster was imminent unless prevented; Qaddafi could not flout international law without consequences. The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.
A humanitarian disaster was imminent, Clinton stated on behalf of Obama. Interesting how humanitarian crises in places like Darfur never count. As for the mythical “line” other countries better not cross, we’re back the future and neck deep in Democratic Scoop Jackson hawkdom now, folks. Yee-haw!
And once again the United States is fighting inside a Muslim country in yet another undeclared war.
Can we just abolish Congress instead of pretending they do anything meaningful?
And while we’re at it just merge the big two political parties, because it’s not like Pres. Obama is actually going to pay any price from Democrats for getting suckered into a no-fly zone bombardment that’s got the U.S. once again out front footing the carnage and the bill, with the mission a mish-mash of muscle flexing.
Ralph Nader suggests Pres. Obama should be impeached for “war crimes.” The notion that Democrats would ever stand up to Barack Obama is such a hilarious suggestion I just about fell off my chair laughing. The media would never allow it. Progressives don’t care that he sold out Democratic Party principles so why would they care he’s now been revealed to be your garden variety conservative on matters of war and peace, too.
When I wrote back in 2007 that if Barack Obama would have voted for the IUMF on Iraq if he’d been in the Senate I was besieged by Obama boy blogger and fans bitching. That’s what happens when you get so close to a politician’s ass you can’t see him (or her) laughing at you out of both sides of his mouth. Poor Andrew Sullivan is positively apoplectic.
Nothing good is going to come of this, with Pres. Obama looking very foolish when we spend all this energy only to end up with the Libyan mad man still in power. I could be wrong, but this could end up being the mother of all turning points for his presidency.