Local newspaper Editorial: Goals on Libya still murky

President Obama tried Monday night to clarify America’s goals — and methods — in Libya. Unfortunately, though, just as the international coalition’s air strikes have so far left dictator Moammar Gadhafi in power, the president’s speech to the nation from Fort McNair in Washington left some troubling questions unanswered.

The president seemed to declare victory of a sort while hailing NATO’s looming Wednesday takeover of coalition command. And for the present, Col. Gadhafi has been beaten back by the coalition. But U.S. air power remains the coalition’s most potent weapon. How much of our air arsenal will remain at the coalition’s disposal? For how long?

Read it all.

Posted in * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, Africa, America/U.S.A., Defense, National Security, Military, England / UK, Europe, Foreign Relations, Libya

4 comments on “Local newspaper Editorial: Goals on Libya still murky

  1. TomRightmyer says:

    The President did not say he was planning to ask for the support of the Congress for this adventure. I think that was a mistake.

  2. Br. Michael says:

    The US isn’t handing over anything. NATO is a US dominated organization. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Libya-FactCheck/2011/03/29/id/390965
    [blockquote]
    OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”

    THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

    NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

    The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.[/blockquote]

    And the continued claim that the intervention is solely to prevent civilian casualties is an outright lie.

    [blockquote]OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”

    THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

    Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. “Clearly they’re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

    The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

    Obama said “we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people,” but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.[/blockquote]

    And all without a scintilla of legality, meaning approval by the Congress.

  3. Ad Orientem says:

    The President of the United States has now taken it upon himself to attack, without a declaration of war, a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States and posed no threat to this country or our citizens. This war is illegal and unconstitutional. The President should be impeached and removed from office.

  4. Br. Michael says:

    4, I agree, it also appears that the Congress will not act. So now what? For myself I am inclined to forgo to vote, since that no longer seems to make any difference.