CoNATOfusion

If you needed any more evidence that the U.S. and its allies began writing the book on attacking Libya without knowing how the final chapter would read, the evidence is now in.

Former colleague Jay Carney got a brush back pitch from this morning’s New York Times:

Mr. Obama, having returned from his trip to Latin America on Wednesday, met privately at the White House with his senior national security officials, but he made no public statements, even as reservations percolated in Congress and elsewhere about the conflict and its end game.

Asked about concerns raised the day before in a letter by the House speaker, John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, said, “I think the president’s been very clear, and he has been asked and answered this question numerous times.”

In fact, Mr. Obama has not made clear what will happen if the international coalition succeeds in establishing control of the skies over Libya, but Colonel Qaddafi’s loyalists and rebels continue to attack and counterattack each other in a bloody, protracted stalemate.

What is becoming clear is that the U.S. and its key allies — Britain and France — appear increasingly likely to pound away at Muammar Gaddafi’s ground forces that attack Libyan civilians-cum-rebels, even as the broader NATO-run no-fly zone makes sure that none of the pretty much utterly destroyed Libyan air force gets off the ground. Bottom line: the U.S. obliterates the so-called Libyan air force and its air-defense network, and the other allies fly no-fly zones that are no longer needed.

This fog of war — about its command and control, not way down there on the battlefield — is what happens when Washington gets too clever by half. The U.S. is the world’s lone superpower, and it really can’t subcontract out international war-fighting to a coalition of lesser states and expect smooth sailing. But that’s precisely what Obama is trying to do with his hands-off approach. He was out of the country when the war began, so couldn’t give the traditional Oval Office address to the nation about sending its forces into harm’s way, and hasn’t dispatched a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier to the fight.

This is all designed to minimize the sense of U.S. involvement. It’ll work so long as U.S. casualties remain at zero. Let’s hope his good fortune continues. The President would be in a world of hurt right now if one of those F-15 pilots whose plane crashed on Libyan soil earlier this week had been captured by Gaddafi’s forces rather than hailed as a hero by the rebels.

Related Topics: libya, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • conversets

    You’re the only one that’s appearing “too clever by half” here, Thompson. “CoNATOfusion”?? Please!!

    Obama was and is clear about our role in Libya. The UN resolution calls not only for a no-fly zone, but also other measures necessary to protect civilians. Obama has said from the beginning that the U.S. will provide initial support, taking out airfields and defense installations, then hand the majority of the effort over to allies.

    You and Boner seem among the few who are confused here. I know Boner’s agenda. What’s yours?

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    “The U.S. is the world’s lone superpower…” this is exactly the abuse of logic that winds up with the U.S. getting involved militarily when it shouldn’t. While it might be true that the U.S. has the largest military and the most reach, the gulf in power between say, the UK and Libya, is so vast that the US presence isn’t actually required were the UK to want to wage war on its own.

  • wagedronenumber9

    The U.S. is the world’s lone superpower, and it really can’t subcontract out international war-fighting to a coalition of lesser states and expect smooth sailing.”

    How do you know this?

    Bottom line: the U.S. obliterates the so-called Libyan air force and its air-defense network, and the other allies fly no-fly zones that are no longer needed.

    Wouldn’t this be smooth sailing?

    Why do we get another hand wringing “we aren’t in charge” post from you, Mr. Thompson? What exactly to do propose that the US should do?

  • Ike Jakson

    Well Mark, one thing is sure; you have touched a raw nerve. Anything else sure? Yeah, but much later; this War was a stupid thing and those who supported it now will rue the day for hundreds of year to come. Those people have VERY LONG MEMORIES.

  • Ike Jakson

    Answer to last question by 1.1: the US should never have gone there in the first place. Howzat?

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    …the U.S. and its allies began writing the book on attacking Libya without knowing how the final chapter would read.

    We shouldn’t be writing the ending for the people of Libya. It’s up to them to decide how it should end.

    The U.S. is the world’s lone superpower, and it really can’t subcontract out international war-fighting to a coalition of lesser states and expect smooth sailing.

    a) ‘Subcontracting? Are you under the illusion that establishing a no-fly zone over Libya was a unilateral decision on the part of the US? b) Why not? c) Define what you mean by ‘smooth sailing’.

    Obama…was out of the country when the war began….

    And that matters…how, exactly? (and I’d question your assertion that the US is at ‘war’ with Libya)

    …hasn’t addressed the nation about sending its forces into harm’s way — his biggest responsibility as commander in chief.

    “Obama Addresses Action in Libya”

    The president reiterated Secretary Clinton’s statement on Libya, saying the U.S. would assist the international community in enforcing the U.N. Resolution with its “unique capabilities”—without any troops on the ground.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONsJVQcswt4&feature=player_embedded

    (transcript)

    …hasn’t dispatched a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier to the fight.

    Why is this necessary? If, as you say, the Libyan air capability is “pretty much utterly destroyed,” and “no-fly zones…are no longer needed,” the what is your rationale for deploying an aircraft carrier? Something to hang your ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign on for photo ops?

    It’ll work so long as U.S. casualties remain at zero. Let’s hope his good fortune continues.

    ‘His’?

    What’s with this urge to a) paint this action as some sort of dead albatross and b) hang it around Obama’s neck, Mark?

    You’re echoing the incoherent arguments of Obama’s detractors…or maybe these mangled thoughts are your own…either way, you’re not making a lot of sense.

  • wagedronenumber9

    That’s what you believe, Ike Jackson, but I’m not sure what Mark Thompson believes because it seems to me that here he is arguing that we should just do it alone. Of course, the next post that he did after this one seems to be saying that we shouldn’t do it at all. So maybe he does agree with you.

  • conversets

    The only “nerve” is that of someone who calls himself a journalist using the resources of the fourth estate for his master’s political agenda.

    Sit, Thompson. Good boy! Write, Thompson. Good boy!

  • lreed580

    General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander, was on C-span’s Washington Journal this morning for an hour taking questions from callers. It should be required viewing by all those in the press who profess to have knowledge of how a military campaign, no-fly zone, etc., should be executed.

    He supports the action the president has taken. He has credence………you, M.T. do not.

  • Ike Jakson

    Well said in your last line, conversets!

  • 53_3

    Is this another piece of that virtual world you are building just so Obama can be incompetent in it?
    .
    Here is a bit of self-serving incompetency in journalism:
    .
    “…without knowing how the final chapter would read, the evidence is now in.”
    .
    The “evidence”?!?!
    .
    I challange you, or anyone else, to demonstrate that war can be fought the same way a business is run.
    .
    Now that should be easy for all of you!
    .
    After all, you have 6,000 years of civilized history to select a single example from!
    .
    jeopardy.wav
    jeopardy.wav
    jeopardy.wav
    .
    I’m waiting…

  • 53_3

    Just how many of you self-serving pundits will come up with an example.
    .
    Fellow swampcritters, if you know of any, please, please let me know!

  • 53_3

    I’m sorry, but talk about self serving, ineffectual, micromanagement oriented, shallow, expectatious, spoon fed, and, not to avoid mentioning, incompetently foolish, ideas about war.
    .
    A fjucking amazing…

  • Mark Thompson

    G.C. — You are right — the President did address the nation on the military action while he was in Brazil. Tweaked to reflect that fact.

  • 53_3

    Wow. The two days this challenge has been up, I hear dead crickets.
    .
    Maybe it’s because even if the underlying assumption (wars can be “itinerized”) is ridiculous in the extreme, this battle is more fun and I’m just a stick in the mud?
    .
    Oh well…

  • 53_3

    Hhhhhow hhhhideous!
    .
    If that was his worst offense, we’re in luck, Mark.
    .
    Oh, excuuuse me:
    .
    Obama didn’t wear an American flag pin at one time or other, right?
    .
    It just sucks when two different events happen at the same time. Maybe we should fix this whole thing by reinventing physics in this brave new world you’re creating just for Obama to be incompetent in…

blog comments powered by Disqus