Mar 20 2011

Obama Adminstration: No Clue Why We Are Bombing Libya

Published by at 3:27 pm under All General Discussions,Obama's War In Libya

The Sunday talk shows are meant to be the ‘world stage’ were the reigning politicians parade around their reasons and rationales for current policies. Today, the Obama administration paraded out how deeply clueless they are on Libya:

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, in a series of Sunday morning television interviews, stressed that the U.S. military mission in Libya is “limited.”

But he also indicated that based on his orders from President Barack Obama, the mission can be considered “accomplished,” even while Moammar Qadhafi remains in power.

As I noted earlier, the implied purpose for all of this was to remove Qadaffi from power, but apparently not anymore. Before the first weekend of the war is completed our firm and resolute young president has once again changed his mind. Something he apparently does many times a day.

25 responses so far

25 Responses to “Obama Adminstration: No Clue Why We Are Bombing Libya”

  1. BizzyBlog says:

    […] the Politico (HT Strata-Sphere): Mullen: Mission isn’t about seeing Qadhafi […]

  2. kathie says:

    “Oh never mind”, the famous words of Barack Obama.

  3. Redteam says:

    “As I noted earlier, the implied purpose for all of this was to remove Qadaffi from power,”

    and that would likely be a good thing, but, maybe not. Depends on who replaces him, might be osama. One thing for sure, this country doesn’t know how to select a country’s leader, look at what we have.

    I saw Lindsay Graham on Fox today. I used to live in SC, back when he was first elected and I thought he had some sense. Now he seems to be a total air-head, leaning liberally.
    He was babbling on about we HAVE to remove Qadafi. why is it any of this country’s business who those people select to lead their country? I use the term select loosely, but they did select him, maybe through ignorance or neglect. I’m not even sure most of the citizens there care who is running the place.

    I’m going to say this one more time. The more obama stays out of this thing, the more likely there is to be a good outcome. I see obama as doing nothing good for this country and even less for any other. Let him stay in Rio or on the golf course.

  4. Wilbur Post says:

    Just one more thing the Obama Administration has no clue about. It’s a very VERY long list.

  5. grumpyguy says:

    My question is, who or what are we supporting?

    Are the rebels Lockean quoting natural rights types, ready to establish a limited government dedicated freeing citizens from the yoke of government and protecting their rights to life, liberty, and property? Haha!

    More than likely, they are Islamists, dedicated to imposing the backwards 7th century religion upon the nation and more than likely, taking the fight to the non-believers just like their “good” book says to.

    Why are we supporting people who will bite us in the ass in the near future?

    Let them fight it out. Now there’s a win-win policy I can get behind.

  6. kathie says:

    These pictures are going to be published tomorrow in a German publication. These rogue soldiers were caught last year committing the atrocities.

    “US Army ‘kill team’ in Afghanistan posed with photos of murdered civilians
    Commanders brace for backlash of anti-US sentiment that could be more damaging than after the Abu Ghraib scandal.”

    Obama is responsible for torture and other despicable acts that these soldiers committed. He deployed these men, it is his war. He allowed these acts. I am sure that MSM will agree with this statement.

  7. WWS says:

    this is lunacy. We’ve already gone past the point of no return.

  8. crosspatch says:

    It is obvious that the purpose of the mission in Lybia is to appear to be “doing something” so that the world could not stand by and say Obama did nothing. That is it in a nutshell. Actually accomplishing anything isn’t really the mission, it is to simply be seen as having “done something”. Picking up a token rock and throwing it so one can be said to have participated and not stood idly by while The Colonel slaughtered his subjects.

    I expect them to declare “mission accomplished” any day now.

  9. WWS says:

    Crosspatch, I sadly think you’re right.

    but do these fools really think they can walk away from what they started? They’re about to find out it ain’t that easy. Once you get hold of the tarbaby, it don’t let you go.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    Obama’s learning that no matter what he does, he’ll piss someone off and it doesn’t matter which side that person is on.

    Looks like Obama’s gone in further than Clinton did with Operation Iraqi freedom and the pharmacy factory. So Obama’s stuck with it.

    I don’t have a problem going in to oust Gadhafy but I don’t understand why we’re going after Libya selectively over any other ME countries…like Iran.

    IOW, I don’t understand the objectives, mission statement, and goals of this mission.

    Do you?

  11. lurker9876 says:

    And now…we’re becoming more dependent on foreign oil…from Brazil!

    This is double standard. Obama’s approved a storage bin in the Gulf of Mexico to store Brazilian oil for Brazil while prolonging the approval of permits for our own oil companies to resume offshore drilling.

    And now he’s going to scrutinize our own nuke plants.

  12. WWS says:

    any course of action that leaves Qadaffy in power means that we will have lost this war.

    Unless we come up with some coherent plans and goals quickly, we are going to LOSE this war.

  13. sherlock says:

    Watched Howie Kurtz on CNN’s Reliable Sources asking his guests whether the media is giving a pass the President on Libya, like they did in the invasion of Iraq, and why. What a howler that last part is.

    Howie’s guests spun and spun, coming up with some howlers of their own (“we all support the military when the shooting starts”), but resolutely avoiding looking at the 800-lb gorilla lounging in the corner of the studio.

    Here’s a hint Howie: the media did not immediately criticize Bush for invading Iraq because the Democrats had not yet told them to – initially the Dems favored it, until some reverses showed them the opportunity to bail out and bash Bush for everything, including tricking them into giving him their initial support!

    And why no upset over Libya? Do you seriously not know Howie? Really? Yes, you and your fellow spinmeisters are “reliable sources” indeed! Just not for us, whom you fatuously claim to serve.

  14. crosspatch says:

    The Democrats began criticizing the Iraq operation as soon as troops cross the border with Kuwait.

    My problem here is that we have a President who has committed US force on behalf of an entity we have no idea deserves that intervention. Iran can shoot its citizens and we do nothing. Why do we act in Libya?

  15. Now that we are in the Libyan war, We need to win.

    Ask yourself how do you support our servicemen in winning this, then act on that.

  16. Redteam says:

    “Now that we are in the Libyan war, We need to win.”

    Trent: pertaining to the Libyan operation, define ‘win’ please.

    If it results in a much more violent government(dictator), one who ends up mass murdering it’s citizens and commiting many terrorists acts against the US. Would this be a ‘win’?

    I don’t think for one second that obama is a friend of the US serviceman.

  17. WWS says:

    Trent, what servicemen? We don’t have any servicemen involved in Libya, that’s what Obama says. Some mysterious people punched a few mysterious buttons on some submarines, but Obama doesn’t know how that happened. It just happened.

    Redteam, you’re right that we can’t define “win”. That’s almost the perfect definition of “Impending Disaster!”: A situation where it is impossible to define what a “win” means.

    BUT – the unfairness of this world means that even when you can’t define what a “win” is, you can ALWAYS “Lose”! And “Lose” means that your nation gets sent away with it’s pants around it’s ankles having accomplished nothing at all while wasting a large amount of money and/or men while it actually bolsters the power of its erstwhile opponent.

    Here is the Formula for Military Disaster:

    NO coherent goals for the operation
    NO coherent strategy that would bring about those goals
    NO identifiable chain of command between allied forces
    NO leadership aimed at bringing about public support
    and unifying the strategies of the various allies.
    OVERRELIANCE on magical and wishful thinking rather than on rational thought.
    Example 1: if we just stop his planes from flying everything will magically be better and things will all work themselves out even though we have no idea how.
    Example 2: All we need to do is to demonstrate to Qadaffy that we are really, really unhappy with him, and then he will just quit because he will feel bad when he knows people don’t like him. (I heard a CNN anchor say that)

    Meanwhile, in the Real World, we only have two options here:

    1) Cut and Run
    2) Escalate, Escalate, Escalate

    You tell me: is there ANY chance this ends in anything but a humiliating disaster for this country?

    and WHAT can any of us do to “support our servicemen” when they are being forced to take orders from a brain dead dilettante who wouldn’t know a coherent military plan if it jumped up on top of his desk in the oval office and sang “Look at me, I am a coherent military plan!”

    To him, our servicemen are nothing but pawns to be used for a “Woohoo! I’m a tough guy!” re-election strategy. You want to help our servicemen? Impeach Obama!!!!

  18. > Trent: pertaining to the Libyan operation, define ‘win’ please.

    This is how I see it:

    Total American Victory

    1) Qadaffi dead or fled and,
    2) A stable sucessor state that is not a terrorist haven, and,
    3) A Democracy.

    American Victory

    1) Qadaffi dead or fled and,
    2) A stable sucessor state that is not a terrorist haven.

    Marginal American Victory

    1) Qadaffi dead or fled and
    2) Unstable State run by junta or autocrat, very anti-Israel to maintain power, hostile to Al-qaeda.

    Marginal American Defeat

    1) Qadaffi dead or fled and
    2) Unstable State run by junta or autocrat, very anti-Israel to maintain power, neutral to supportive of to Al-qaeda.

    American Defeat

    1) Qadaffi dead or fled and
    2) Iranian aligned, Al-Qaeda terrorist supporting state

    Total American Defeat

    1) Qadaffi survives in power, or

    Special conditions:

    1) America suffers total defeat if we get a 9/11/2001 class terrorist attack connected to the Libyan fighting, regardless of any other outcome.

    2) Drop our victory level by one level for every successful, less than 9/11/2001 class, domestic terrorist attack linked to foreign terrorists during Libyan fighting.

  19. Special condition addition

    3) Drop victory levels by two levels is victory requires extended comittment of Division plus of American troops for more than a year.

  20. WWS says:

    Trent, if the man who’s nominally in charge of this operation had even one TENTH of the clarity of thought that you’ve shown here, we might have a chance of achieving something.

    He won’t even admit that we have a goal of removing Qadaffy! Which of course means that is NOT our goal, which is why Admiral Mullen on Sunday said that Qadaffy might remain in power after all.

    When the commanders at the top have no idea what our objectives really are, what chance do we of achieving anything worthwhile?

    I’ve said before: our only chance of success is if everyone in this administration is blatantly lying about what they intend.

    On the other hand, if Admiral Mullen was telling the truth, then by your own standards Total American Defeat is virtually assured.