Libya: Boots On The…Ship?

USS Bataan leaves Norfolk Wednesday to pick up Marines en route to Libyan theater / Navy photo by Brian Goodwin

President Obama and his commanders have made it clear there will be “no American boots on the ground” in Libya. So how come 2,200 heavily-armed and ready-to-fight Marines are heading to just off “the shores of Tripoli,” as leathernecks like to sing? They’re the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), and will be climbing aboard the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) — the USS Bataan, the USS Mesa Verde, and the USS Whidbey Island — as it deploys three months ahead of schedule next week, toward Libya.

While the Marines can help out in humanitarian efforts, war is their reason for being. A press release from the Bataan itself two days ago used the word combat four times in its brief description of the 22nd MEU:

The 22nd MEU is comprised of its Command Element; a Ground Combat Element, Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment; Aviation Combat Element, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 263 (Reinforced); and Logistics Combat Element, Combat Logistics Battalion (CLB) 22.

The Bataan group heads toward Libya, after it stops in North Carolina this weekend to pick up those Marines. Once in the Mediterranean Sea, it’ll relieve the USS Kearsarge and its sister vessels, which have been supporting operations in Libya. But most of the Kearsarge’s Marines were dropped off in Afghanistan in January (400 more were dispatched to the Kearsarge group as Libya heated up earlier this month).

The Bataan and Kearsarge are amphibious assault vessels, and look like small aircraft carriers. Strangely, the U.S. Navy — which has two aircraft carriers nearby — hasn’t moved either one closer to Libya. Some in the Pentagon suggest that’s because the White House doesn’t want the Libyan operation to look too “American-centric.” There’s no clearer way of displaying U.S. might than by dispatching a 100,000-ton carrier to a world hot spot. Unlike the Marine ships, there are no ground troops aboard a carrier or her supporting vessels. Much smaller carriers from France and Italy are flying Libyan ops.

Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, told TIME earlier this week that we shouldn’t read too much into the lack of a carrier off Libya’s coast. “It’s prudent to have, in the north Arabian Sea, the Arabian Gulf, the Indian Ocean region, the two carriers that we have there now,” he said. “Where we move our forces is really driven by the combatant commanders, but you did not see me — and some may say, `Well gee, that sounds strange for a Navy guy’ — you didn’t see me clamoring to put Enterprise back into the Mediterranean.”

It certainly knocks the wind out of the Navy’s favorite quote. “When trouble looms, the first thing the President always asks is `Where’s the nearest carrier?’” Navy officers like to say. “Where’s the nearest ARG?” doesn’t have quite the same ring.

Related Topics: aircraft carriers, libya, marines, navy, 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:

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

    Good God, Thompson. Give up, already. Three posts of conjecture so far today, each progressively dumber.

    So how come 2,200 heavily-armed and ready-to-fight Marines are heading to just off “the shores of Tripoli…While the Marines can help out in humanitarian efforts…”

    a) Ask-and-answered. If not, then b) Go ask someone who would know about it and then write the blog post.

    There’s no clearer way of displaying U.S. might than by dispatching a 100,000-ton carrier to a world hot spot…told TIME earlier this week that we shouldn’t read too much into the lack of a carrier off Libya’s coast…

    What’s with your hard-on for aircraft carriers? Precision missile strikes and smashed air and ground capability not enough of a display for you?

    I dunno what’s worse – the ill-informed armchair quarterbacking or the pushing of this narrative as a wedge between Obama and his support from the left.

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

    And can we also ban “shores of Tripoli” as a phrase for awhile? It’s so cheesy the way Thompson uses it, especially with the image of singing Marines like they’re in the chorus of Guys and Dolls or something.

  • conversets

    Hunh? Hunh? Why’d Obama do this?? Hunh?

    Why’d Obama do that?? Hunh? Hunh?

    Told ya so! See! Right there it is!

    Geez, you sound like a six-year-old, Thompson. Give it up.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Before the US, NATO, and the UNSC acted, Thompson wrote about “No-drama Obama’s dithering over — or is it carefully pondering? — the wisdom of imposing a no-fly zone.”
    -
    In a separate post entitled “Libya? Your Move, Mr. President,” he subtly posted an image of Piccasso’s Guernica, and quoted three pro-intervention writers saying things like “The West’s refusal to come to the aid of Libya’s lightly-armed freedom fighters as they face planes, tanks, and heavy weapons may turn the Libyan civil war into the first great betrayal of the 21st century, reminiscent of many that stained the last century.”
    -
    Thompson has shown a very consistent philosophy all throughout his writing about Obama’s response to the Libya crisis: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

  • 53_3

    Well, Mark, I have to say:
    .
    If anything, you are relentless…

  • http://ericychan.wordpress.com ericychan

    Agreed with the above. Between the Monday morning quarterbacking alternating with meaningless posts, this makes me wish CJ Chivers was posting here instead.

  • 53_3

    And I don’t know much about what’s going on in Libya, but isn’t it possible that those 2200 men and women are there to possibly, just maybe, uh, rescue someone?
    .
    I mean, there is a civil war going on there, right?
    .
    Also, who says they are there specifically for Libya? They might be there for training. They might be useful for action against pirates, a short sail away.
    .
    Hells bells MT, give up already, why dontcha!

  • chupkar

    *sigh* (I thought I only had to do that with the trolls)

  • 53_3

    Mark:
    Having such a force available is certainly wise in any event.
    .
    After all, didn’t you notice that the whole ME is in flames, or at least smoldering a bit around the edges?
    .
    Doesn’t life really suck when Obama actually does things right?

  • 53_3

    Maybe this is a giant, hideous sociological experiment in which we are the journalists and they are the trolls.
    .
    Either that, or Mark needs research for an article he’s planning to write, and surreptitiously, he’s found a treasure trove of unpaid gophers.
    .
    Take yer pick…

  • chupkar

    #1, I thought marines on Navy vessels was some kind of time honored thing. Could be wrong.

    #2 Why is no news source showing this?

    Hundreds, if not thousands of Libyans expressing thanks. Not doomsday-y enough?

  • 53_3

    A foreign country’s citizens actually thanking us, and the right isn’t playing it up?
    .
    Why do they hate America so much?
    .
    Oh, I know:
    .
    They love America, but they hate Obama more. And, of course, someone has to be thrown under the bus…

  • afguy

    What’s with your hard-on for aircraft carriers?
    .
    Bad as he is, grape, he has NOTHING over that ongoing priaprism and ecstatic climax we “lovingly” know as rdw56.
    .
    That one needs a case of condoms (preventative) or Handi-Wipes (reactive) by his keyboard when he types about all things military and Israel-related (esp. the killing).

  • allthingsinaname

    I do not think that there maybe a need to retrieve a down pilot or two at some point. Probably not, planes do not go down. Oh wait….

  • afguy

    Mention Petraeus and his toes curl and eyes roll back…

  • apollyon07

    I would guess that they only have them there either for assistance or in case the situation goes from sh ! t show (like it currently is) to sh ! t storm.

  • square1

    Uh oh, it looks like Thompson has struck a nerve. As a lawyer, when I ask questions and the witness (or her lawyer) starts squirming, that is usually a good indicator that I am on the right track.

    Since joining Swampland, Mark Thompson has shown himself to be the rare journalist who is both highly informed on military and intelligence issues and skeptical of the MIC. I welcome his continued presence.

    Thompson has raised a number of questions about the Libyan conflict, both explicitly and implicitly, that should be answered:

    Does the Obama administration have an end-game in Libya? If so, is it realistic? And are they sharing that end-game with the American public and Congress?

    He also raises important political questions:

    What exactly is Obama’s foreign-policy philosophy? Does it differ significantly from George W. Bush’s (or, for that matter, George H.W. Bush’s, in which case I would argue not)? Is this what Democrats thought they were getting when they voted for Obama? And, if not, what will the political consequences be for Obama if most Democrats don’t agree with his foreign-policy vision?

  • square1

    One must also consider the possibility that the President wanted a suitable backdrop for a “Mission Accomplished” banner.

  • conversets

    Hey, everyone! Meet Mark’s mom!

  • 53_3

    With respect, I’d like to reiterate the point that managing a war is not like managing a business…

  • lreed580

    The editorial in my home town paper today was entitled “An early achievement in Libya: a massacre that didn’t happen”.

    It concludes with these two paragraphs:

    “It’s not clear when we’ll get there, or how the current effort will turn out. What we know is that thousands of Libyans are alive today because the U.S., its European allies and the United Nations acted.”

    “And if we can’t define how Libya will look three months from now, the country can build on those lives – instead of on enduring regrets.”

    If the Democrats calling into Washington Journal are any indication, the president has a good deal of support.

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

    Engaging in some pre-emptive trollery, are we?

  • pintortwo

    I’m surprised by the (mostly) negative reaction to MT’s post. I think his suspicion is appropriate. You don’t send 4 vessels with 2200 marines to rescue a few downed pilots.
    .
    I am concerned over how this is progressing. First, the admin floats the debate that intervention may be needed, then Kerry suggests a “thin” cooperative no-fly zone. Suddenly, with no discussion or authorization in Congress, we are leading a robust intervention. Now we have Marines battalions on the scene just in case– hmm. I commend MT for voicing these concerns.
    .
    Given the Pentagon leaders’ and the Obama admin’s history, I can very easily see this as the precursor to boots-on-the-ground (with plenty of media support, you know, for democracy). Next step? – “we must stop terrorists from taking over Libya” . Or “we must respond to an attack on US soldiers” (I expect an attack is inevitable). Or perhaps these same Libyans that welcome our help now grow to despise our continued presence…
    .
    Can’t you all see the potential for this to become a long-term military commitment with enduring bases to police Northern Africa? -I sure can.

  • chupkar

    “Can’t you all see the potential for this to become a long-term military commitment with enduring bases to police Northern Africa? -I sure can.”

    I have a surprise for you. Libya or not, marines or not, Northern Africa has been and will continue to be a long term military commitment. I guess it is just a matter of *how* commited, but still, potatos potahtoes.

  • pintortwo

    Fresh off the press:
    .
    “Even as other nations begin taking a larger role in the international air assault mission in Libya, the Pentagon is considering adding Air Force gunships and other attack aircraft that are better suited for tangling with Libyan ground forces in contested urban areas..
    (…)
    (Navy Vice Adm. William) Gortney (staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said.. the Pentagon was considering bringing in side-firing AC-130 gunships, helicopters and armed drone aircraft that could challenge Libyan ground forces that threaten civilians in cities..”
    .
    - link

  • 53_3

    I think it is because the overriding assumption is that Obama somehow scewed up.
    .
    With the assumption made, MT and others have been indulging in constructing a fantasy world for Obama to do it in.
    .
    We are seeing this pass to NATO. I don’t have a problem with how it’s being handled. I do not think Obama is dumb enough to make declarations about Iraq, then turn around and drag us into Libya.
    .
    I realize that some of you have doubts about Obama, and they may even be legitimate.
    .
    The problem is that MT and MC plus others have been feeding right wing passions and are stoking the “hate Obama” camp mightily.
    .
    There are two motivational streams besides mine:
    .
    1. The right wingers, who are motivated by pure and simple wishes to tear Obama down in any way they can.
    .
    2. You and Square1 plus others, who are questioning what where why, and when, and probably should continue to do so. Doubts are normal and usually healthy.
    .
    I just don’t want to see a conflation, such as the imaginary “Liberal – Neocon alliance”…

  • 53_3

    Of course, none of you, whatever your motivations are, have yet to say a word concerning the lack of intelligence and utterly ridiculous mindset that wars cannot be managed like business ventures.
    .
    I’ve been waiting for a while, and it is decidedly at the core of this issue…

  • 53_3

    oops.
    …that wars can be managed…

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Thus spoken by afwang, our beloved military expert.
    .
    Our air force is such a better institution, now that you’ve retired. Jerk.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    What you really mean to say monkeyboy, is that it’s right BECAUSE it’s B.O doing it.
    .
    The exact same move under the exact same circumstances during a republican administration, and you would call it warmongering.
    .
    So predictable, you libs.

  • kate

    Maybe our commanders, including the one that is “in chief,” have learned that it is better to be prepared for unexpected events, to have forces available, and not to be caught flat footed. One doesn’t get extra troops into war zones instantaneously.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    “I just don’t want to see a conflation, such as the imaginary “Liberal – Neocon alliance”…”
    .
    Imaginary! I hear ya!
    .
    MT failed to cite a notable difference between these 2 presidents: George, right or wrong, definately loved his country and believed in her greatness. B.O feels nothing but disdain for America, and is fully invested in bringing her down.
    .
    To want to tear B.O down is pure necessity and as patriotic as it gets. He must fail!

  • square1

    With all due respect — and I have plenty of respect for you — I am missing your point. Did someone say that wars can be managed like business ventures?
    .
    The truth is that some aspects of military operations ARE like business ventures (e.g. goal-setting, measuring progress, and maintaining communication with team members) and some things are completely different.
    .
    My main problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When someone points out the lack of a long-term plan (as people did to Bush pre-Iraq invasion), you can’t just throw up your hands and say “war is messy” to brush away the criticism.
    .
    I am sure that Obama has nothing but the best of intentions. But, quite frankly, so did Bush with Iraq. I actually think Bush believed all the nonsense about being greeted with rose petals and democracy sweeping across the region after Saddam fell.
    .
    Having good intentions doesn’t justify making bad decisions. And it doesn’t justify acting extra-constitutionally, as Bush did and as Obama is now doing.
    .
    The Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war. The only legitimate exceptions are when the threat to the country is so imminent that there is no time to go to Congress. However, this is a classic example of a situation where there was time to let Congress vote.
    .
    No, I am not going to give him a pass just because he is a Democrat (even if I know that the Republicans are only criticizing Obama because the President is a Democrat.)

  • allthingsinaname

    “My main problem is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions”
    .
    Yes it has, but who’s?

  • 53_3

    Actually I beg to differ on the idea that war can be managed, and my point is this, please excuse the sarcasm:
    .
    The is the little matter of the opponent, which by definition, has other plans.
    .
    You do not see that in business. Not anywhere.
    .
    The needing to cross every i and dot every t before going to war is a patently ridiculous concept.
    .
    You plan, you have contingencies, you plan for the contingencies you are know about, and you hope for the best.
    .
    The entire history of war is filled with the unexpected. And “unexpected” means exactly that.
    .
    That is why I am so harshly critical of those who are so ill advised as to fool themselves into believing that war is an event that runs on rails…

  • 53_3

    A couple other thoughts:
    .
    There is nothing wrong with communicating, setting goals, and the other mundane tasks described above. What I have a problem with is the far-to-high expectations that things will roll along without incident, and then, when the unexpected does happen, it has to be someones’ fault.
    .
    I have a problem with that. Maybe the words to describe it might be:
    .
    “Nintendo Mentality”
    .
    As for good intentions, Obama is a far, far cry from Bush. Bush Jr. seems to have been far more Machiavellian in his approach to politics than Obama ever was.
    .
    Just look at the difference in the crewes:
    .
    Rahm was a bit Machiavellian, but you had Rove, Cheney, Ashcroft, and an endless list of people who had distinctly dark intent on the political scene; for them, an egg to be broken is of no consequence.
    .
    Bush seems to be a follower in his conduct, but nevertheless I feel he reflected his own character in his choices. I do not think he honestly felt he was doing good, except in the context of breaking a few eggs in order to do it.
    .
    I believe Bush was more of a rigid ideologist who felt that it was to be implemented even at a price – even if that price was people in his way, or in the way of his minions.
    .
    So no, In summary, Bush is Bush and Obama is Obama and never the twain shall meet…

  • 53_3

    However, on the Constitutional front, I agree with you, but that should have been addressed, say, in 1950…

  • 53_3

    I’ll take 1/3rd of an agreement, unless you also agree that fighting wars must be done by crossing all your t’s and dotting all your i’s first.
    .
    In which case, make that 2/3rds.
    .
    No pun intended, because we won’t come to an agreement on Obama.

  • 53_3

    Make that …can’t be done by…

  • 53_3

    One other thought. These things come in pieces, I guess, so bear with:
    .
    I have no doubt that Obama has a plan. So far, he has, despite people’s claims to the contrary, brilliantly astute in his handling of foreign affairs including the art of military geopolitical endeavors.
    .
    We juat have not been informed of what those plans are…

  • 53_3

    One though, 2/3rds:
    .
    Don’t forget that the North Korean crisis marks the first time since the end of the Korean War, that an American president stood firmly behind the line drawn in the sand – and – it was North Korea that blinked.
    .
    That, my friend, stands out as one of the singularly most powerful messages about the might and will of America that has been displayed since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    .
    Regardless of your politics, that did happen…

  • afguy

    Why, thank you, dumbastworocks…
    .
    Coming from you, I consider that a compliment.

  • afguy

    Amazing, rockman…
    .
    You know what we meant to say even if we didn’t say it.
    .
    Then say we are predictable for saying the words YOU put in our mouths (but we didn’t actually say).
    .
    It’s called a “strawman”, rocksforbrains. And projection…
    .
    Thought ALL real ‘Murcans were supposed to support the President in a time of war – otherwise you were undermining the troops.
    .
    Wasn’t that the tune during W’s buildup to the little clambake in Iraq?
    .
    Why do you hate the troops so much, severalrocksshortofafullwall…

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    I do not think he honestly felt he [Bush] was doing good, except in the context of breaking a few eggs in order to do it.
    .
    Do you honestly think that Obama thinks he is doing good in Libya? I’d argue that Obama does not think this is a good idea, but feels that inaction will be perceived as worse than wrong action. Rather than face the petulant criticism from the GOP or the intellectually lazy critiques of our “Fourth Estate” media, I think Obama is feeling pressured into doing something.

  • liberalmeltdown

    Square1@ 10.0, looks like you struck a nerve with the libtards.
    .
    Whenever you do, the first thing they do is act like 10 year olds. Name calling is their only response. The rest of the time they are quite mature considering their arrested development.

  • 53_3

    Our Favorite Terrorist Patriot is a real gem, ain’t he?

  • 53_3

    That’s entirely possible, Exiled.
    .
    One of the problems I see with that idea is that Obama has been completely immersed in petulant criticism from Day One.
    .
    There is, however, from the grabbag of history, a mission that had much in common geopolotically: The post Desert Storm NFZ mission.
    .
    I won’t completely discount it, but Obama has been singularly resistant to such.
    .
    On the other hand, he has compromised on some issues that I had hoped he would hold firm on.
    .
    This I guess, Exiled is a windy way of saying:
    .
    Hmmm. Maybe…

  • 53_3

    Shouldn’t you be sniffing right wing butts?

  • pintortwo

    I tend to agree with Exiled. I think we should concentrate less on Obama’s intentions (perhaps his biggest ambition is to be re-elected, which is common in DC) and more on the State Dept/Pentagon’s intentions.
    .
    If we try to decipher intentions from their actions, can there be any doubt that they are best summed up by this from 2005:
    .
    A network of forward facilities and capabilities.. provides the United States with an unmatched ability to act globally..
    .
    To strengthen our capability for prompt global action.. we require the capacity to move swiftly into and through strategic pivot points and remote locations. The new global posture-using main operating bases (MOB), forward operating sites (FOS), and a diverse array of more austere cooperative security locations (CSL)- will support such needs. In addition, our prepositioned equipment and stocks overseas will be better configured and positioned for global employment. We will make better use of “reach back” capabilities for those functions that can be accomplished without deploying forward.
    .
    …In addition to these, joint sea basing too holds promise for the broader transformation of our overseas military posture.
    .
    Increasing the flexibility and support provided by prepositioned equipment and materiel is another important aspect of our facilities infrastructure.. Support materiel and combat capabilities should be positioned in critical regions and along key transportation routes to enable worldwide deployment.

    .
    - The National Defense Strategy of the United States (link)
    .
    I think we need to consider the possibility that our Libyan intervention may be a continuation of this mission.

  • 53_3

    pintertwo:
    .
    I think that the geopolitics hasn’t been fully considered:
    .
    Do you know why the French were so quickly involved?
    .
    My point is that Europe will be leading this thing. One thing the Europeans have done in the past is to be the first to come to the aid of their former colonies.
    .
    Notice French and British reaction to Tunisia. We are seeing European ex-colonial nations supporting their respective commonwealth members.
    .
    I think that there is no danger whatsoever of us being more deeply involved.

blog comments powered by Disqus