Posted on 04/19/2011 6:00:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Of our Libyan intervention, one thing may be safely said, and another safely predicted.
When he launched his strikes on the Libyan army and regime, Barack Obama did not think it through. And this nation is now likely to be drawn even deeper into that war.
For Moammar Gadhafi's forces not only survived the U.S. air and missile strikes, after which we turned the air war over to NATO, his forces have since shown themselves superior to the rebels. Without NATO, the rebels would have been routed a month ago.
And, today, NATO itself stands a chance of being humiliated.
"NATO's Bomb Supply Is Running Short," ran Saturday's headline in The Washington Post over a story that began thus:
"Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in maintaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time. ...
"The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts ... about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi hangs on to power."
Only six NATO nations have planes running strikes on the Libyan army, and the French and British, who are doing most of the bombing, are running out of laser-guided munitions. And their planes are not equipped to handle U.S. smart bombs.
NATO air attacks are thus becoming less precise and lethal, as Gadhafi is pounding Misrata, the last rebel-held city in the west, and his army is again contesting Ajdabiya, the gateway to Benghazi.
In short, the war is not going well. Where does this leave us?
If the United States does not get back on the field, the Libyan army will likely crush resistance in Misrata and push the rebels back to Benghazi and Tobruk.
As the rebels lack the soldiering experience or organization to conduct an offensive, and their NATO air arm is weakening, the best they can probably hope for in the near term is to hold on to what they have in the east. Which means a stalemate -- a no-win war.
Can Obama accept such an outcome to a war he started, at the outset of which he declared Gadhafi must go? Can he go into 2012 with Republicans mocking him for picking a fight with Gadhafi, then losing it for the United States? Can Obama leave Gadhafi in Tripoli knowing he is plotting terror attacks against America in reprisal?
If Gadhafi survives, does Obama survive?
Can he tell the beleaguered British and French we are not going to double down on our folly of having started this war?
In an op-ed last week in The New York Times, Obama, along with Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, wrote:
"Our duty and our mandate is ... not to remove Gadhafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadhafi in power. ... It is unthinkable that someone who tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government."
But if it is "unthinkable" and "impossible" for Gadhafi to remain in power, who is going to remove him?
Absent celestial intervention, it is Uncle Sam, or no one.
If regime change is now the unstated NATO mission, who but the United States can ensure the mission is accomplished?
The Post story about Britain and France, the leading military powers of NATO Europe, depleting their smart-bomb supply in a one-month clash with an African nation of 6 million, and begging the Yanks to come back and win the war for them, raises a major question.
Is the most successful alliance in history, which kept the Red Army of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev from smashing through the Fulda Gap and reaching the Channel, a hollow shell?
Is NATO, without America, a paper tiger?
On the eve of World War I, the German foreign minister, after visiting the aged Emperor Franz Josef in Austria, reported back to the Kaiser, "Sire, we are allied to a corpse."
Are we?
In the 1990s, we had to pull the British and French chestnuts out of the Bosnian fire. When Serbs fought for their cradle province of Kosovo, America had to break Belgrade with 78 days of bombing.
NATO Europe couldn't handle a fight in its own backyard.
Though we are still in Iraq, NATO is gone. There are NATO units in Afghanistan, but some have pulled out and others won't fight.
What benefit does America receive from membership in NATO to justify the cost of maintaining tens of thousands of troops, air and naval bases, ships and planes defending a rich and populous continent that chronically refuses to provide the arms and men to defend itself?
Why are Americans still defending Europe 66 years after World War II ended and a generation after the Soviet Union disappeared?
Isn't it time we kicked them out of the nest?
“On Tuesday Dutch Brigadier General Mark van Uhm, Chief of Allied Operations, and NATO spokesman Carmen Romero briefed the media on NATO’s operation in Libya in support of UNSCR 1973. at NATO headquarters in Brussels,
Van Uhm rejected criticism of the pace of the Libya campaign after French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe had earlier in the day criticized the Alliance for not doing enough.”
It seems ominous to me that the last time the Dutch were in charge of anything it was Sebrenica.
Not a fortuitous omen.
My opinion all along. I don’t know what our force structure in Western Europe is as of 2011, but it should be very small. Our overseas bases and deployment should concentrate on the Far East, Midde East and Med. There is no reason in 2011 for us to have anything in Western Europe. What’s the point in relation to our National Defense?
Pacifist clap trap by the grand ignoriti in the press intent only on writing something controversial to save their suppurating hide from economic death
I say let's take that archaic Monroe Doctrine and that Marshall Plan that says we're supposed to police force the world and throw it out! Let's stay home for the next ten years, people!
-Jake Blues-
Nato is a black hole to throw tax dollars down, time to bury the body. Daffy has won in libya, the ragtags have about four acres left and they are fighting house to house there. Nato will be pulling the ones still alive out shortly.
Thought it looked like an interesting article til I noticed who wrote it.
This guy kind of conflates two mostly-unrelated issues here. On the one hand, yes, we probably need to make Europe get off it’s collective (collectivist?) butt and start investing in their own armed forced, but on the other hand, it’s really boorish of the Zer0 to start a fight and then push it off on other countries just because it’s politically inconvenient to him. I realize this is ostensibly being done under the auspices of the UN, and the other countries did (sort of) join with us voluntarily, but at the same time, I’m sure they did so only because we were along for the ride, and absent us they would have done something else.
“Weekend at Muammar’s”...
Yes, there is. Russia. Think the bear's dead or something?
And there are millions of Moslems now .... lusting to put crescent moons on top of all the famous buildings of European civilization. We're probably going to have to fight for Europe some day. Might as well stay pre-positioned.
No, you don't get it.
Obama engineered this a) to set a precedent of UN/international commanders bossing US assets, b) to set another precedent of UN intervention in a country's internal affairs (see: Israel, also U.S.A. and "Aztlan"), and c) to corroborate the International Left's formulary, which they've been pushing at the UN, of a "duty to protect", viz., the UN barging into a country to "protect" some "civilians" (like Hamas, like MeCha, like LaRaza, like Hizbollah) from a big, bad oppressor (like Israel, like the U.S.A.).
Obozo's screwing with us and setting up a) the overrunning of Israel and a new Holocaust, and b) the partition and destruction of the United States by enemy Great Powers under UN auspices (how about a Chinese "mandate" west of the Rockies, to "protect" ethnic Asians and Mexicans? -- like that idea?).
But...but...but Bob Beckel said about a month ago that barry´d have this wrapped up inside of a week.
The various Balkan crises of the 1990's showed that the Euros were now 'paper tigers.' But I had some hope left that NATO might pull itself together.
I have no beef with the troops of our allies-- it's their cowardly and stupid political leadership. And Obama is giving us a taste of that medicine.
You better be right because right now we couldn't field an army to stop them.
He is BUSY, I tell ya! Takes TIME to play golf! LOL
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.