“Why Did the U.S. Hand Off the Libyan War to NATO?”

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | August 9, 2011 | +

Why did the U.S. military agree to do the “heavy lifting” in the opening days of the war with Libya — launching long-range bombing strikes from the continental U.S., among other martial fireworks — before handing off the next nearly six months (and counting!) to our NATO allies? Is this a new way of waging war on the cheap for the U.S. military? A template for future multi-national military campaigns? John Nagl of the Center for a New American Security and yours truly discuss the issue with Andrew Exum, a former Army officer now with CNAS, and Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel and Libya expert now with the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Related Topics: andrew exum, paul hughes, Army, Command Post, Libya, Military, National Security, NATO, Pentagon

@TIME

Latest on Battleland

Afghanistan May 21, 2012

Only One Year of U.S.-Led Fighting Left

President Obama’s goal at the NATO summit this week is looking increasingly clear: wrap up U.S. troops’ combat role over the coming year, and get the allies to pay more money to enable the Afghan military to fill the gap.

Missile Defense May 21, 2012

House Pushes for East Coast Missile Shield

The House has approved a $643 billion defense-spending bill for 2013 that’s $3.7 billion more than the Obama Administration, and its Pentagon, is seeking. That’s just about the same amount the Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill’s push for an East Coast missile shield will cost over the next five years.

Military Spending May 21, 2012

The Pentagon’s “Washington Monument Strategy”

Whenever federal bureaucrats running the nation’s parks get antsy that their purse is likely to shrink, they roll out something long known as the “Washington Monument strategy.” That’s the tried-and-true technique of warning the public that if money isn’t forthcoming, one of the first budget cuts will force the shutting down of the popular obelisk to Washington, D.C., tourists.