Confusion in Libya Assault Plan: NATO, Obama, UN Asking ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Newsmax ^ | 3/21/2011 | Newsmax Wires

[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...

[gandalftb]

Well, it's a late in the game payback on Lockerbie and the disco bombing. Mostly, we are trying to position ourselves well with France, Italy, and England by doing the heavy lifting and letting them benefit economically with unfettered access to Libyan oil and uranium ore.

Humanitarian reasons? Huh? We did nothing in Rwanda when 750,000 were butchered.

Promoting democracy? Huh? We are doing nothing now in Cote d'Ivoire to help the newly elected government take power and more are being killed there than in the violence in Libya.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks gandalftb.