Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told NBC’s Meet the Press this morning that the U.S. will have a “limited” campaign in Libya with “no boots on the ground.” The mission, he said, “is not about occupation in any way, shape or form.”
Mullen acknowledged that Moammar Qaddafi, the Libyan tyrant, may be able to hold onto power. “It isn’t about seeing him go,” he said. “It is about supporting the United Nations resolution, which talked to eliminating his ability to kill his own people as well supporting the humanitarian effort.”
When moderator David Gregory pressed, Mullen reiterated that Qaddafi could remain in Tripoli. “That is certainly potentially one outcome,” he said.
God bless the Admiral and his troops. The more we here about this "mission", the more blessings they need. Are we going to guard those people forever?!
The international coalition may see Kurdish Iraq before 2003 as the most likely model, with a stalemate imposed, and Benghazi serving as free Libya, with the no fly/no military offensive zone preventing Qadafi from reclaiming that part of his country.
It's unclear though, what that would mean for control of Libyan oil fields. Many of the largest fields are east of Benghazi, near the Egyptian border.
the U.S. will have a “limited” campaign in Libya with “no boots on the ground.”
Slightly expanded future versions:
1. "They're not combat troops"
2. "The humanitarian aid will be provided by military personnel who need to be protected"
3. "They're just advisers"
4. "They're not military, those are private contractors"
The real question is "Is he completely ignorant of all U.S. interventions, or is he just a liar?"
The left always claimed that we are creating terroist by our military actions.
Here is a man who has the ways and means to committ terroist attacks against the US. He has done so in the past. Recently, he has not been a threat to his neighbors or to the US. There is good reason to believe that he would not have been a threat to the US in the future.
Why are we creating an enemy out of someone who is not a threat? This is stupidity!
The General needs to explain how the stated mission -- protecting the Libyan people -- is consistent with his statement that Khadafi might remain in power. It doesn't make sense. The entire justification for U.S. action is that he is killing his own people. So with ground troops ruled out, then the only other option is the removal of Khadafi. Or are they they just going to fly planes over Libya for years to come until Khadafi dies of old age?
What we have here is a divided Obama administration, by virtue of dithering and reluctance to act at the top, coupled with acute attention to domestic political polling, getting sucked into a sandy quagmire by forces and events beyond its ken or control. Vis-a-vis 2012, this may be a mini-Viet Nam for Obama politically. Lots for every US political faction to hate, and even in the best case outcome*, very little to like.
*Best case outcome = minimal US involvement, Qaddafy & Co ousted, replaced by moderate Arabs who repel jihadists and move towards something like democracy. Chances of this not good for 2012.
Likely outcomes - (1) Divided Libya with Qaddafy in one corner, rebels in another for months/years, US & allies providing 'protection'. (2) Qaddafy flat out wins back his country, kills rebels, thumbs nose at Obama, and with no reason to fear Obama returns to exporting anti-US terror. (3) Mission creep, as a Qaddafy/Rebel stalemate draws US & allies further and further in, year after year, eventual boots on the ground, quagmire.
Mr. Hawkins, I'll go with your "likely outcome #1". If for no other reason, this won't be a mini-Vietnam because of topography and terrain. It will be easy for allied forces to keep Moammar in a box and well-away from rebel forces, because we enjoy (for all practical purposes) complete air dominance. That wasn't the case, for a variety of reasons, in Vietnam.
I would agree that the longer this drags on - and unless we get really lucky and someone offs Moammar, it could drag on for a long time - the more likely some kind of offensive ground presence will manifest itself. However, going into an election year, I really don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, but I'm cynical that way.
There is too much oil produced and shipped out of Benghazi for a power vacuum to exist in Libya for months. President Obama doesn't recognize that, but the customers for Libyan oil do.
This is not akin to Iraqi oilfields that deteriorated over the decades. There is a lot of western money invested and you can be sure those entities won't be content to abandon their investments.
The most likely model may be Kurdish Iraq before 2003, with a stalemate imposed, and Benghazi serving as
"Free Libya", with the no fly/no military offensive zone preventing Qadafi from reclaiming that part of the country.
It's unclear though, what that would mean for control of Libyan oil fields. Many of the largest fields are east of Benghazi, near the Egyptian border.
Eventually of course, Qadafi's commanders may decide that enough is enough, and will eliminate him. After all, this is not the Republican Guards, but a largely mercenary force. One would assume that they can be "persuaded".
To take option 3 a bit further:
3.1 In response to atrocities, US puts embargo on Qaddafi
3.2 "International community" howls and yibbers that "1 million Libyan children" have been killed by it
3.3 Qaddafi shoots at planes enforcing no-fly zone
3.4 Qaddafi ostentatiously kicks out nuclear inspectors
3.5 Rebels sit around in Benghazi enjoying the US protection and make no move(probably can't) to go on offense.
3.6 Qaddafi gives money to Palestinian suicide bombers and other anti-west terrorist groups
3.7 After this drags on for 12 years, US finally gets rid of him. Sadly, US has a Republican president at the time. Instantly, "international community" turns on a dime, baying and howling about the "illegality" of it all.
Mr. Wilson: "If for no other reason, this won't be a mini-Vietnam because of topography and terrain."
Please note I said a mini-Viet Nam *politically*, in the sense of dragging out long enough to lose US public support, such as it is at the beginning, and damaging Obama politically. Thanks for pointing out Libya and Viet Nam have entirely different topographies and terrain. Who knew.
To Eloris: You cite, at least partly tongue in cheek, I believe, many of a limitless number of potential outcomes that could come back to bite Obama in the short term and the US overall.
I wonder if the reporters will be tripping over themselves to nail down an "exit strategy" this time around? Hmm. Actually, reading Mullen's comments the answer would be "We don't need an exit strategy because we aren't really entering anything. Consider it something like...I don't know...voting 'present' on a bill to ensure medical care for live babies born of botched abortions.
God bless the Admiral and his troops. The more we here about this "mission", the more blessings they need. Are we going to guard those people forever?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe international coalition may see Kurdish Iraq before 2003 as the most likely model, with a stalemate imposed, and Benghazi serving as free Libya, with the no fly/no military offensive zone preventing Qadafi from reclaiming that part of his country.
It's unclear though, what that would mean for control of Libyan oil fields. Many of the largest fields are east of Benghazi, near the Egyptian border.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe U.S. will have a “limited” campaign in Libya with “no boots on the ground.”
Slightly expanded future versions:
1. "They're not combat troops"
2. "The humanitarian aid will be provided by military personnel who need to be protected"
3. "They're just advisers"
4. "They're not military, those are private contractors"
The real question is "Is he completely ignorant of all U.S. interventions, or is he just a liar?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell ... there you have it: It's about the UN resolution.
Who'd running this government anyway?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere will be no boots on the ground until the mission has safely created a national security threat to justify them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe left always claimed that we are creating terroist by our military actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is a man who has the ways and means to committ terroist attacks against the US. He has done so in the past. Recently, he has not been a threat to his neighbors or to the US. There is good reason to believe that he would not have been a threat to the US in the future.
Why are we creating an enemy out of someone who is not a threat? This is stupidity!
The General needs to explain how the stated mission -- protecting the Libyan people -- is consistent with his statement that Khadafi might remain in power. It doesn't make sense. The entire justification for U.S. action is that he is killing his own people. So with ground troops ruled out, then the only other option is the removal of Khadafi. Or are they they just going to fly planes over Libya for years to come until Khadafi dies of old age?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat year is this 1991? Isn't this what we said about Saddam? We left him in power for another 11 years and we're still in Iraq.
BTW, wasnt' dear leader supposed to get us out of Iraq by now?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho is Mullen kidding? He and Gates both need to go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt isn't about wagging the dog that hard... yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat we have here is a divided Obama administration, by virtue of dithering and reluctance to act at the top, coupled with acute attention to domestic political polling, getting sucked into a sandy quagmire by forces and events beyond its ken or control. Vis-a-vis 2012, this may be a mini-Viet Nam for Obama politically. Lots for every US political faction to hate, and even in the best case outcome*, very little to like.
*Best case outcome = minimal US involvement, Qaddafy & Co ousted, replaced by moderate Arabs who repel jihadists and move towards something like democracy. Chances of this not good for 2012.
Likely outcomes - (1) Divided Libya with Qaddafy in one corner, rebels in another for months/years, US & allies providing 'protection'. (2) Qaddafy flat out wins back his country, kills rebels, thumbs nose at Obama, and with no reason to fear Obama returns to exporting anti-US terror. (3) Mission creep, as a Qaddafy/Rebel stalemate draws US & allies further and further in, year after year, eventual boots on the ground, quagmire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Hawkins, I'll go with your "likely outcome #1". If for no other reason, this won't be a mini-Vietnam because of topography and terrain. It will be easy for allied forces to keep Moammar in a box and well-away from rebel forces, because we enjoy (for all practical purposes) complete air dominance. That wasn't the case, for a variety of reasons, in Vietnam.
I would agree that the longer this drags on - and unless we get really lucky and someone offs Moammar, it could drag on for a long time - the more likely some kind of offensive ground presence will manifest itself. However, going into an election year, I really don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, but I'm cynical that way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is too much oil produced and shipped out of Benghazi for a power vacuum to exist in Libya for months. President Obama doesn't recognize that, but the customers for Libyan oil do.
This is not akin to Iraqi oilfields that deteriorated over the decades. There is a lot of western money invested and you can be sure those entities won't be content to abandon their investments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe most likely model may be Kurdish Iraq before 2003, with a stalemate imposed, and Benghazi serving as
"Free Libya", with the no fly/no military offensive zone preventing Qadafi from reclaiming that part of the country.
It's unclear though, what that would mean for control of Libyan oil fields. Many of the largest fields are east of Benghazi, near the Egyptian border.
Eventually of course, Qadafi's commanders may decide that enough is enough, and will eliminate him. After all, this is not the Republican Guards, but a largely mercenary force. One would assume that they can be "persuaded".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHenry:
To take option 3 a bit further:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse3.1 In response to atrocities, US puts embargo on Qaddafi
3.2 "International community" howls and yibbers that "1 million Libyan children" have been killed by it
3.3 Qaddafi shoots at planes enforcing no-fly zone
3.4 Qaddafi ostentatiously kicks out nuclear inspectors
3.5 Rebels sit around in Benghazi enjoying the US protection and make no move(probably can't) to go on offense.
3.6 Qaddafi gives money to Palestinian suicide bombers and other anti-west terrorist groups
3.7 After this drags on for 12 years, US finally gets rid of him. Sadly, US has a Republican president at the time. Instantly, "international community" turns on a dime, baying and howling about the "illegality" of it all.
Mr. Wilson: "If for no other reason, this won't be a mini-Vietnam because of topography and terrain."
Please note I said a mini-Viet Nam *politically*, in the sense of dragging out long enough to lose US public support, such as it is at the beginning, and damaging Obama politically. Thanks for pointing out Libya and Viet Nam have entirely different topographies and terrain. Who knew.
To Eloris: You cite, at least partly tongue in cheek, I believe, many of a limitless number of potential outcomes that could come back to bite Obama in the short term and the US overall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if the reporters will be tripping over themselves to nail down an "exit strategy" this time around? Hmm. Actually, reading Mullen's comments the answer would be "We don't need an exit strategy because we aren't really entering anything. Consider it something like...I don't know...voting 'present' on a bill to ensure medical care for live babies born of botched abortions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse