Posted on 03/22/2011 1:44:51 PM PDT by Qbert
Confusion reigned Monday among U.N. and NATO nations about who’s in charge of the multi-country attack against Libya, even as an international coalition continued air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
President Barack Obama’s White House hasn’t definitively addressed that essential issue about an operation that has cost the United States well more than $100 million, and is increasingly rapidly. Other questions looming:
Are the United States and its allies attacking Libya to save the country’s citizens from slaughter at the hands of their leader Gadhafi, as the U.N. resolution endorsing the enforcement of the no-fly zone called for, or are they ultimately trying to push him out of power? That oust-Gadhafi question resonates with echoes of previous statements from both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the ruthless dictator must go. And how do those messages mesh with a top admiral’s statement that Gadhafi could remain in power?
How, and when, will the United States hand off leadership of the military attack to other countries?
What is the potential for this to become a U.S. police action and/or extended involvement like that in Iraq and Afghanistan?
[Snip]
But a half a world away, NATO members voiced confusion and exasperation about who’s in charge of the campaign as they met Monday in Brussels to work out their own involvement in the no-fly zone campaign, The New York Times reported...
[Snip]
Turkey, a NATO member also involved in the Brussels meeting, didn’t want to use force in Libya in the first place, and its representatives still are riled about being left out of a Paris meeting on Saturday, the Times reported...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Isn't there an oil pipeline under the Med. into Italy?
That'd be their horse in the race. Not a ligit reason to attack Libya - just wanting to protect that oil from falling into the hands of France or another country,
Will someone tell me again what right we have to interfere in a CIVIL WAR in a SORVEREIGN country?
Interesting- thanks. I suppose Obama figures he will weasel out and let them duke it out then.
As Obama ignores the Constitution and supports the One World Government destiny he and Susan Powers are crafting for the UN, they have illegally committed US Forces without the involvment of Congress, instead relying on a “P2P” fabricated authority for the UN giving them a power to protect populations that they were never given by their charter.
Its all about establishing a precedent that P2P exists. Once used and then used again, the leftists will claim it was always there and should be there, soverign nations be damned.
A leader: - leads (community organizers go on vacation)
- has a defined objective (you never know what non-leaders really have in mind)
- has a game plan (non-leaders allow others to dictate the game plan)
- has an articulated end game (community organizers change their end game based their voting base)
Possible Outcomes:
Qaddafi wins (Most likely outcome): Very bad, comes back with vengeance and purges people in own country, might lash out as in the 80s, will definitely have a more adversarial approach with US particularly but also France, UK etc. *** Most probable: very Bad.
Rebels win (Less likely outcome): Outcome uncertain in so far that we don't just get another strong arm rise to power there who's just as repressive and ruthless as Qaddafi. Possible that a more dangerous leader with a more hostile and ideologically based view rises to power (unlikely). But what is the likelihood that a free democratic pro West open and transparent society comes from this if we already preemptive stated that we will NOT commit ground troops? Very, very unlikely. *** Most probable: bad.
Seriously, what is the scenario in the victory of either side and what is it's likelihood that something good comes of this? So, the question is really if this will be very bad or just bad.
Do you have an opinion of what, if any, U.S. interest warrants aggressive involvement of our military? At least any interest so vital that it is worth further inflaming the Muslim world? (I will stipulate inflammation may be built in and unavoidable.)
They told me if I voted Republican n 2008, the world would hate and ridicule us—and they were right!
This is what happens when you elect the junior high team (Obama and the liberals) into the NFL (world affairs).
The question is not “who’s in charge” but “who’s to blame.”
Hey, WhoTH is that “you” you refer to? {:^)
This type of incidental and seemingly passive action that increases the level of harm to America’s warriors was indeed predictable for an inexperienced CIC, who in a pinch can only respond, “present” (and not in a military way).
I could be wrong, but I almost get the sense that this was Hillary tired of nobody listening to her (there were reports leaking out to that effect last week), so she said enough is enough and threw her toys finally- consequences to Obama be darned. I don’t think Obama would’ve done this on his own, considering his usual obsequious behavior when Muslims are involved.
One thing for sure it will not be mac daddy, he is all booked up with golfing, parties and vacations to be side tracked with these minor problems.
You may be correct.
If she acted unilaterally, got the drop on him so to speak, she must be very confident with the quality of evidence she has.
Not the evidence against Cadaffy (sp?) but evidence regarding a moslem much closer to her.
Jimmy Carter is no longer the worst President in recent US History. That much is clear.
What a Clusterf...!
It may be that the only thing worse than losing this war is wining it.
You can't spell Q’Daffy wrong.
Here's a list of 112 more ways to spell that name:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/how-many-different-ways-can-you-spell-gaddafi.html
Maybe they should just draw straws! Loser leads!
Yes there is a pipeline from Libya to Sicily, the big problem is that Italy lacks refineries. Libya provides a third of Italy’s oil. Last August Qaddafi shut off the pipeline for awhile to shake Italy up. Bad, bad move for Qaddafi. He is direct threat to Italy’s national interest and they are leaning in hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.