What a headline:
NATO says it cannot stop shelling of Libyan city
TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO military commanders conceded Tuesday they are unable to stop Moammar Gadhafi’s shelling of the rebel-held city of Misrata, where hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties, while Britain said it will dispatch senior military officers to advise the opposition.
Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city, has been under siege for nearly two months, with rebels holding on to seaside positions in the port area. In recent days, Libyan troops have pounded the city with shells and rockets.
NATO can’t take out a couple of howitzers? How the hell was it supposed to have stopped a dozen Soviet motor rifle divisions screaming through Bavaria?
Mr. Foster, you're confusing the "NATO" discussed in this news report with the historical "NATO" that included -- and principally relied upon -- American military forces to slow down the Soviets or, failing that, unleash tactical nukes upon them.
The NATO referred to in the headline is something new indeed: It's meant to make people think of "Western European countries," even though NATO's member countries include the western side of the Atlantic and, now, quite far east into Europe.
The NATO that in fact is fighting now is one in which the American presence has been minimized -- not to promote military potency, but to promote (or more precisely, to avoid impairment of) the 2012 presidential campaign of one Barack H. Obama.
Without the mostly-concealed American support it's still getting, the "NATO" referenced in that headline would be even more pitiful than this report reveals it to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only way NATO was going to stop Soviet motor rifle divisions going through Bavaria was with nukes.
Fortunately, that wasn't necessary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNATO is now as dead as the Warsaw Pact. Just a name, nothing more.
And I am sure Jintao and Putin is quite pleased with Obama's NATO "leadership".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow the hell was it supposed to have stopped a dozen Soviet motor rifle divisions screaming through Bavaria?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnswer: Tactical Nukes!
On further thought: "Pitiful" isn't the right word exactly. I have no doubt that the French, Brits, or Germans could whip Kadafi much more convincingly in a conventional military fight than the Brits whipped Argentina in the Falklands. (The supply train would be vastly shorter.) The Dutch and the Italians and the Danes, among others, have made small but nontrivial contributions in Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't mean to slight those unfairly.
But what's called for here is the sort of subtle and deft application of military power that no one else in the world can do as well as we Americans have learned to do it. And of course, we're still learning. Even if this were a U.S.-led show, as long as we're sticking to Obama's insane notion that we can't target Kadafi personally, we're not going to be able to take down his regime with smart bombs and cruise missiles.
Again, the problem is Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't worry about it. We may have lost Misrata, but we're still Winning The Future, or as I prefer to think about it in acronym form, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
It is amazing the auto censor caught that acronym. It is impossible that the initials of Winning The Future could be a profanity. We all know that only a foul, ugly, crass keynote speech would be built around a profanity, and we all know the POTUS was going to do away with that kind of sneering at the nation.
Oh well. As those of us who used to serve with NATO used to say, FTW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's why they need U.S. A-10 "Warthogs" and AC-130 "Spectre" gunships to put down accurate fire on those howitzer and mortar positions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Jim - not only is the acronym for Obama's catchphrase a profanity, Debbie Wa**erman Shuultz is an obscenity!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCdr Maxwell has hit the nail in the head. And if the Tac nukes weren't enough then the Strategic would've been unlimbered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they are really howitzers they are not as easy to kill as motorised artillery and armour. Howitzers are so simple that they survive the crews that run them unless you have a direct hit. You just put more conscripts and mercenaries on them.
This shows why the idiotic manner air campaigns have been conducted the last twenty or so years has made the US armed forces unable to resolve these sorts of conflicts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How the hell was it supposed to have stopped a dozen Soviet motor rifle divisions screaming through Bavaria?"
Two words: ground troops.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, saw on Drudge earlier that the Brits have "advisors" on the ground now. (didn't see that one coming, did we!?) Maybe the additional mission creep that everyone said would not happen can help the situation.
My bet is that the Obama ROE prevents "allied" airpower from striking the guns. Qadaffi, as many of us predicted a LOOONG time ago, has taken to hiding his guns, soldiers, tanks, etc. in and around civilian populated areas.
I eagerly await the calls from the "Arab Spring" Brigade for U.S. Ground Troops to invade Libya.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"NATO the impotent"?
Respectfully, we did not need to wait for the impotence, as it was declared in advance.
1. USA/Obama declared impotence after 2 weeks.
2. Germany declared impotence decades ago.
3. Italy/Spain/Turkey/Greece -- always impotent and bankrupt.
4. UK/France ... making an effort, but not much.
5. Canada/Dutch/Danes/Norwegians/ ... not much, but more than 1,2,3 combined.
NATO is not a magic foreign army, it is just you and I, and we cannot be bothered. If you need someone to accuse, just look in the mirror!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYesterday, when I first read this headline, I missed the "of" in "shelling of Libyan city". At first I wondered if shelling Libyan cities was just too much fun to stop. Then I thought that maybe buying artillery rounds from the Lays potato chip company wasn't such a good idea. The reality is more depressing, of course.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse