I very much would like to see France take over this operation, complete with intervention by ground troops. Then, after the Libyan government collapses and France tries to pick up the pieces, we cans pend the next 10 years criticizing France for not doing a good enough job.

Sec. GATES: This command and control business is complicated. And we haven't done something like this kind of on-the-fly before and so it's not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.

As Stan Lee would say Enough said.

The statement above is the definition of Cluster F***. Which shows that their is no Leadership at the top. This really what they accused Bush of Ready Shoot AIM.

"When this transition takes place, it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone. It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily enforcing the arms embargo. That's precisely what the other nations are going to do," the president said at a news conference in El Salvador as he neared the end of a Latin American trip overshadowed by events in Libya.

Except that the UN will order him to maintain the US's military in these operations. Obama won't refuse because he already committed our forces on behalf of the UN (and informed Congress after the fact.).

He opposed US action against Iraq and Afghanistan claiming that there was no threat to US interests and that these were Iraqi and Afghanis internal matters. He opposed 'imposing' democracy in these two countries.

Now he not only attacks a country that posed no threat to the US and that is an actual civil war, but he does so without consulting Congress until after he commences the assaults.

He says that 'Daffy' must go, then turns around and mews something about working with the existing government in Libya.

He keeps contradicting himself one day to the next and the MSM not only keeps covering for him, but are enthusiastic cheerleaders for what he is doing.

The last time we let the UN control things on the ground we end up with Dead Soldiers. In Somali it was UN that ordered US Army helicopters to fire on meeting that had old men and women instead of sending ground troops like the Army wanted. It was the Italians that provided information to the enemy on American troop movements and then it was the UN that did not send in Armor to rescue Americans.

We need to either be in charge or pull out now. Since we have not reason to be in Libya it is time to pull out and let Coalition of the willing fight.

What's next?

Well, this morning Sec. Clinton is reporting that Gadhafi is quietly looking for a way to step down, and the press is reporting that the air strikes are working wonders on the ground.

So what does President Obama do? Why, back off from his "Gadhafi must go" position. Of course.

“You are absolutely right that as long as Qadhafi remains in power, and unless he changes his approach and there are significant reforms in the Libyan government that allow the Libyan people to express themselves, there are still going be potential threats against Libyan people—unless he is going to step down,” Obama said.

Worthless and weak.

I see Obama is pre-emptively shifting blame.

That talks with Cameron and Sarkozy are described as a squabble leads one to believe they're all having second thoughts about this.
The "squabble" is probably about who's going to take the lead and all three men are stepping back.

Knowing Obama, he's probably working on the surrender papers, the one's we'll be signing.

Unless......there must be some way to blame Bush. There's gotta be a way.

Empty suit begets empty promises.

"this is a time of glory, that we are living."

Quackdaffy must have been promised a czar position.

How freakin interesting. There are boots on the ground right NOW, in the form of the 26th MEU. They number 2,200 as this is written. Their tasking ends shortly, to be replaced by the 22nd MEU.

I guess this is just part of the NFZ that Obama cleared with Congress before instituting it.

Now all that remains is the prerequisite spin to explain.

"Gadhafi, meanwhile, made his first public appearance in a week, promising enthusiastic supporters at his residential compound in Tripoli,....."

Well, if you really, really believe - as Obama has said - that Gadhafi must go, I know exactly where the very next cruise missle should land.

Though I am a genuine anti-O,I am, in fact sympathetic to the mission (Ghaddafi is a filthy cancerous pus-bag) AND to the desire to get the Euros and UN in up to their eyeballs, so the US can take sort of as much of a back seat as possible. I am sympathetic to both.

And my epiphany of the week is that this could be an Obama-ending event. Like, he might even choose not to run again because of it. My epiphany comes from the fact that, as of this morning, there is very little news (change) on the Libyan side, all sorts of news on the coalition side (uh-oh).

The fact is, after that opening salvo, we ARE into this up to our eyeballs, and there ain’t no weaseling out of that, no matter what we do next. That is now estabished. Ya think Daffy thinks we are in it big time? Ya think?

So now Obama has to be the Bush he has always run against. He has no choice. Show of hands, who here thinks he’s up to that task in particular? (Set aside everything else for the moment.) But if he is just not willing to do that, and the coalition dissolves into the fuster-cluck that it certainly looks like (look at the coalition trend-line and ask yourself “what intervening power or event will alter that”?), then Daffy will likely survive in a ‘West Libya’ scenario, wherby every loathsome element on planet earth will rally to him, and an entirely new national-european security abscess will have been opened not “on Obama’s watch”… but by him, personally… one hundred percent.

Or, Obama draws upon his Bushian reserves of fierce determination and resolve to see what he has started through to the end. Bets, anyone?

This is exactly what ‘in over your head’ looks like. If we all see it, do you think anyone outside our borders does?

Voting present is no longer an option.

That's why he's voting 'absent' and gone off on vacation again.

Remmember, Barack Obama told that this is a "humanitarian mission" in Libya. Question: Why are they hitting tanks if there is a 'no fly zone"? Humanitariam mission - food and supplies...not bombs! Where's Congress's approval Obama? Guess since GWB is not involved in this one, all bets are off and you can do whatever you want and the libtards will follow you like the usual fools they are! Pathetic!

Even if it is the right thing to be involved in Libya, the very nature of Obama's character suggests to me, uinfortunately, that the world must live without the United States leading in international affairs until we have a new president. I am sorry to feel this way but Obama simply does not have the interest, focus and guts to be involving us in situations like this. He is like a quarterback who hates to get hit. He loves having his pic on the glossy cover of the game program every week but he wants the ball out of his hands as fast as possible so he doesn't have to eat dirt. Better to lose yardage than get banged up. And it will always be due to the slippery fingers or lack of that extra effort on the part of the receiver that results in a dropped pass. Never a bad throw from Barry.

obama has screwed this one up and there is little chance of it coming out well.

First he waffled allowing Gaddafi to recover his position and start a counter offensive. Then he waited for someone else to lead which got him only a tepid UN resolution that does not call for Gaddafi's removal and a no fly zone declared when Gaddafi was ready to roll the tanks and switch to a ground offensive anyway.

Now he is wanting to place the military effort, which is overwhelmingly US troops under foreign command, something which has never worked out well.

Now he is stuck with a war that he didn't consult Congress on, alienating many in his own party, and not having a clear goal or exit strategy. With the halfhearted UN resolution the best that could be hoped for is for Gaddafi to somehow be persuaded to step down (don't know how that's going to happen) or for a stalemate enforced by a long term presence of foreign troops on Libyan soil.

What slays me is his continued pronouncement that Gaddafi has "Lost the legitimacy to lead". Really? Does he really mean that? If legitimacy comes from a mandate of the masses then how does a dictator ever have legitimacy? Or is obama merely tipping his hand that he believes that all elections are in essence shams? Or is he signaling his desire to be such a dictator himself and staking out the position that, like Chavez, one can dispense with a constitutional democracy and impose an authoritarian dictatorship and maintain legitimacy?

jim m:

When did 'Daffy' ever have 'legitimacy to lead'? Didn't the Colonel overthrow the previous regime in a coup?

Hermie,

That's exactly my point. Gaddafi never had legitimacy. He has only ever been a dictator. obama is saying that Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy when the reality is that there never was any.

By claiming that legitimacy has been lost obama admits that he believe that military dictatorships are legitimate forms of government equal to a democracy and he offers he possibility that a military dictator can "regain" legitimacy if he can put down a revolt.

If that is the obama doctrine then we are in a very bad place indeed.

"Voting present is no longer an option."

But a round of golf always is.

What a host of mutually contradictory criticism, which mirrors the whole spectrum of Republican opposition (and Democat defectors)! 20% of you say or suggest America should never have got involved, another 20% say America must unilaterally lead, another 20% let the coalition or Nato take the lead, another 20@ say Obama acted too rashed and preciptously, another 20% said he waited too long to get all the ducks on the pond the UN resolution Arab League support. The proof will be in the results but it seems Obama got it about right in an extraordinary difficult decision, and no wonder wizbang's overwhelming choice for President was... Fred Thompson.

This whole thing is FUBAR
Germans are pulling out equipment and troops from the region because they do not want to be involved.

The Italians are saying they will take away airbases if it turned over to NATO.

The French do not want NATO control.
The UK wants to terminate Daffy with Extreme Prejudice
While Gates is saying he not a target.

It is time to take out toys home and leave let the UN and Arab league deal with this.. We need to stock up and prepare to fight Egypt now that the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control.

If we stay we are going to allow pro Al Quada Forces to take over Libya and endanger American troops and Israel.

Hey didn't the UK release the Lockerbie Bomber!! Yeah causes they had Oil Deals. Hey don't the French get most of their Oil from mm Libya?

"The proof will be in the results but it seems Obama got it about right in an extraordinary difficult decision,..."

I agree that it was a very difficult decision. I also agree that the proof will be in the results. Therefore, it is too early to know whether he got it right.

Steve (post 18): " it seems Obama got it about right in an extraordinary difficult decision"

What exactly did he get right?
I'd love to know.

And the recent rockets and today's bombing in Israel gives Israel the right to.......

The proof will be in the results but it seems Obama got it about right in an extraordinary difficult decision

Your taking about his Bracket Picks not the Collation of the Unwilling.

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution. But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

In a bid to halt the embarrassing bickering, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe today proposed a new war committee to oversee operations. The new body, Mr Juppe said, would bring together foreign ministers of participating states - such as Britain, France and the U.S. - as well as the Arab League.

Adding pressure to the already fractured alliance, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has also reiterated a warning that Italy would take back control of airbases it has authorised for use by allies for operations over Libya unless a NATO coordination structure was agreed. In a shock admission, U.K. ministers have admitted the intervention in Libya could last for up to '30 years'. Asked for an estimate, British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said: 'How long is a piece of string? We don't know how long this is going to go on. 'We don't know if this is going to result in a stalemate. We don't know if his capabilities are going to be degraded quickly. Ask me again in a week.

Steve C. - I'm not going to pile on, because you are in fact dead right. This proof WILL be in the results.

And if Qadaffi goes (where?, one wonders), or is hit by a bus that looks a lot like a Tomahawk, and if a friendly, or at least reasonably non-hostile, stable replacement gov actually steps up, that will be a titanic victory for the 44th POTUS. I've said it, that's now on record.

Problem is, what do we see right now that makes anyone think that is going to happen? One thing that HAS to happen is that millions of Libyans who must make a life-risking choice today must THEMSELVES see that wonderful result as likely. D'ya think they do right now?? When they see a coalition in ebarrassing disarry, a US President harping on off-loading responsiblilty ASAP (his own words), and military forces talking as much about what they won't do as what they will?

I support this President's desire to see Daffy gone. I even support the idea of putting others than us in the forefront. But what is needed most of all at this point is a coherent strategy backed by fierce determination to see it succeed. Going to war without both is criminal negligence. Obama's own party in Congress doesn't see it, why would anyone else see it, particularly those who will die if they back the wrong horse...... the weak one.

"..a titanic victory for the 44th POTUS."

It could turn out to be a victory for him, but really...a titanic victory? Against a third rate dictator with a third rate army? Pffft.
Unless you mean a Titanic victory, like the boat. That seems just as probable.