General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya

[iamrefreshed]

CBS/AP)
WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

This will be interesting. I suspect that President Obama is learning not to make grand statements as situations do tend to change.

 

[didymus]

CBS/AP)
WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

This will be interesting. I suspect that President Obama is learning not to make grand statements as situations do tend to change.

Someone explain to me why we are still in NATO?
Why does NATO still exist?

I suspect the pressure to do something! is the source of a lot of irresponsible decisions. In Libya & elsewhere we should resist the temptation (yeah, too late now) and just wait for the dust to settle.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Obama would be putting the political nail in his coffin sending troops to Libya. Fighting a two-front war draining the United States of American lives (soldiers) and treasure and credibility already, sending in troops to another Muslim country as “liberators” will ensure the far left abandons Obama and the Right wing uses it against him. He’ll look even more hypocritical than he already does. I think he’ll stick with the no-fly zone happy medium…

 

[Raskolnikov]

gurneyhalleck1:

Obama would be putting the political nail in his coffin sending troops to Libya. Fighting a two-front war draining the United States of American lives (soldiers) and treasure and credibility already, sending in troops to another Muslim country as “liberators” will ensure the far left abandons Obama and the Right wing uses it against him. He’ll look even more hypocritical than he already does. I think he’ll stick with the no-fly zone happy medium…

I agree. How ironic would it be for a Republican to beat Obama on an anti-war platform in 2012. Hopefully he has enough of a sense of irony to stay out of it. He does still have two other wars to finish up as well.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And I wish he’d end them both already. Afghanistan…nobody has been able to take that place since Alexander the Great! Iraq? Nothing like moving the only check on the power of Iran that we had in the region—Hussein! Now Libya? I don’t think Barack will go that far. He was hesitant and slow even to set up the No-Fly Zone, which I applaud him for taking time to cautiously ponder. We should stay out of the Middle East period…and forget it

I agree. How ironic would it be for a Republican to beat Obama on an anti-war platform in 2012. Hopefully he has enough of a sense of irony to stay out of it. He does still have two other wars to finish up as well.

 

[sidbrown]

CBS/AP)
WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml#ixzz1IrtMwlxl

This will be interesting. I suspect that President Obama is learning not to make grand statements as situations do tend to change.

More useless wars resulting in the death and injury to young Americans for nothing. All this money and lives wasted on these useless wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. I thought that Obama was supposed to be opposed to these foolish interventions, but now it looks like he has flip flopped. The country is being taken over by war profiteers.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I believe it was Eisenhower who said “beware the military-industrial complex.” The Tea Partiers missed out on that wise admonishment by a great Republican president!

More useless wars resulting in the death and injury to young Americans for nothing. All this money and lives wasted on these useless wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. I thought that Obama was supposed to be opposed to these foolish interventions, but now it looks like he has flip flopped. The country is being taken over by war profiteers.

 

[Nec5]

Someone explain to me why we are still in NATO?
Why does NATO still exist?To protect us against the WARSAW pact during Red October and when we see the Red Storm Rising. Oh wait.

If we put ground forces in Libya, it will work out just fine like in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean every thing in those countries is hunky dorry now, right? The press doesn’t mention any of the bombings or slayings so it’s all good now.

 

[gamewell45]

More useless wars resulting in the death and injury to young Americans for nothing. All this money and lives wasted on these useless wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. I thought that Obama was supposed to be opposed to these foolish interventions, but now it looks like he has flip flopped. The country is being taken over by war profiteers.

Who put our troops in these countries in the first place? It sure wasn’t Obama, now he has to clean up the mess from the prior administration; not an easy task as you can see.

 

[SamH]

Who put our troops in these countries in the first place? It sure wasn’t Obama, now he has to clean up the mess from the prior administration; not an easy task as you can see.

I seem to recall the democrats demanding that it happen.

In fact President Bush insisted that the matter come before congress for approval before he would take action - even though many in Congress claimed he already had authority to do so when they approved military action against Iraq in 1991, but Bush wasn’t buying it and said he needed congressional approval or he wouldn’t act. He knew that without it he would be blamed for unilaterally taking the country to war by the democrats. He thought that with them on the record as approving his actions he could prevent them from turning it into a cheap political ploy. Little did he know the gall of the people he was dealing with.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Who put our troops in these countries in the first place? .

US Congress

 

[Michael_C]

Of course! What else did you expect. Endless war…We must always be in a state of war because that gives the “State” the most power. We lose liberties and they gain emergency powers that never go away.

“WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

 

[JaredM]

U.S. may consider troops in Libya

No, no, no, no, NO, NO, and NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[iamrefreshed]

I can’t post a link because I know this through a personal contact but the UK has special forces boots on the ground in Lybia already.

These are soldiers, not operatives of some sort.

Addition: Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like some conspiritist.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I can’t post a link because I know this through a personal contact but the UK has special forces boots on the ground in Lybia already.

These are soldiers, not operatives of some sort.

Addition: Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like some conspiritist.

They’re probably highly trained advisers, training the rebels.

Both the US and Australia had advisers in Vietnam well before we sent larger contingents of troops.

 

[sidbrown]

Who put our troops in these countries in the first place? It sure wasn’t Obama, now he has to clean up the mess from the prior administration; not an easy task as you can see.

Did he not increase the troop levels in Afghanistan???

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Obama did indeed paint himself into a corner with his campaign speeches and agenda making Afghanistan the “real focus” that the U.S. should have as a war. He talked up the importance of Afghanistan and how crucial it is to win there and how Bush took his eye off the real war and took us to Iraq. So he had to make good on his talk and up the troop levels. Problem is, nobody has won there in centuries. Alexander the Great did ok there. Apart from that…phhhhhfft…Obama could’ve run from a more sensical approach and said that we’re pulling out of all these Islamic quagmires. Instead he wanted to look tough and be a hawk in just one country. He’s now in an unenviable place with foreign policy. Campaigns have consequences…

Did he not increase the troop levels in Afghanistan???

 

[He_Man]

Obama did indeed paint himself into a corner with his campaign speeches and agenda making Afghanistan the “real focus” that the U.S. should have as a war. He talked up the importance of Afghanistan and how crucial it is to win there and how Bush took his eye off the real war and took us to Iraq. So he had to make good on his talk and up the troop levels. Problem is, nobody has won there in centuries. Alexander the Great did ok there. Apart from that…phhhhhfft…Obama could’ve run from a more sensical approach and said that we’re pulling out of all these Islamic quagmires. Instead he wanted to look tough and be a hawk in just one country. He’s now in an unenviable place with foreign policy. Campaigns have consequences…

Perhaps he shouldn’t run his mouth as often as he loves to do. Seems like every thing he does flies in the face of an arrogant speech he gave some time in the last 4 years. He’s either a liar, or he was severely underprepared for reality as Chief Executive of the US.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or both…

The last two presidents we’ve had, Obama and Bush, both were ill-prepared and woefully inadequate for the job and definitely NOT the best that either party had to offer. Bush ran our country into the ground. Obama isn’t doing much better. As a union guy myself, I’m very disappointed that he hasn’t done more for organized labor. As a teacher I think he helped us in some ways financially but I’m disappointed with the merit pay and the race to the top goofiness. I think he overspent to try to stop the bleeding in the economy but I think Bush would’ve spent $$$ like a drunken sailor as well. Only time will tell. GM, Chrysler, etc. are turning solid profits paying back the loans and the economy is showing “some” signs of revival. I’m not a big fan but I will say that if Palin, Bachman, Gingrich, or some of these other goofballs run, I’ll stick with Obama despite not being much of a fan…

Where’s Man-At-Arms, Teela, and Cringer when you need 'em, eh?

Perhaps he shouldn’t run his mouth as often as he loves to do. Seems like every thing he does flies in the face of an arrogant speech he gave some time in the last 4 years. He’s either a liar, or he was severely underprepared for reality as Chief Executive of the US.

 

[gilliam]

We haven’t had a good commander in chief in the white house since Ike.