Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
International alliance divided over Libya command
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.
And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.
The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.
The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)
Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theen...rnational-alliance-divided-over-libya-command
we hear from some libs that the US is not in overtly charge, they are pulling the strings though, but in secret. this is an odd assertion to make, especially since the libs making that claim also take pride that the US is working in secret, behind the scenes. now we hear from our CIC that we are in charge and will hand over the reigns.
it is intriguing that some people in congress are questioning this. the outrage over iraq makes this "question" period look silly. we have invaded this country, killed their people and supposedly civilians as well, in order to.........what.......protect the country from gaddafi? why is it some libs are OK with the libya action, but not the iraq action?
makes no sense.
President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.
And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.
The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.
The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)
Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theen...rnational-alliance-divided-over-libya-command
we hear from some libs that the US is not in overtly charge, they are pulling the strings though, but in secret. this is an odd assertion to make, especially since the libs making that claim also take pride that the US is working in secret, behind the scenes. now we hear from our CIC that we are in charge and will hand over the reigns.
it is intriguing that some people in congress are questioning this. the outrage over iraq makes this "question" period look silly. we have invaded this country, killed their people and supposedly civilians as well, in order to.........what.......protect the country from gaddafi? why is it some libs are OK with the libya action, but not the iraq action?
makes no sense.
