General Says U.S. May Consider Sending Troops Into Libya
“I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya. In the coming weeks, we will continue to help the Libyan people with humanitarian and economic assistance so that they can fulfill their aspirations peacefully.” – Obama (March 18, 2011).
General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya
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.
Largely stalemated? Isn’t that what Obama wants? After all, his goal was to prevent a civilian massacre. If Qaddafi wins, supposedly (if we are to believe Obama) innocent civilians not loyal to Qaddafi will die. If the al-Qaeda backed rebels win, it is most certain that innocent civilians who are loyal to Qaddafi will die. A stalemate keeps the “innocent” civilians relatively safe. For now…
Therefore, under Obama’s stated goal of supposedly protecting civilians, I don’t see any problems with a stalemate. A stalemate is, in fact, more desirable than any other outcome that Obama may have in mind.
He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Muammar Qaddafi’s forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging military forces and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.
The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster rebels fighting forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
So…we need to bolster the rebels, is that what I’m hearing? Gee, I thought NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the alliance was “impartial” and that we weren’t picking sides in this fight But, isn’t bolstering the rebels picking sides?
I would say yes. Yes indeed it is.
Not only that, but I’m pretty sure Obama is already secretly funneling arms to the Libyan rebels. Probably through Qatar, or some other third world cesspool.
This is a dangerous game. Those same weapons which are being used against Qaddafi will wind up in the hands of Jihadists and will eventually be used against America and her allies. Mark my words!Explore posts in the same categories: Libya, Military, Obama Sucks, politics