What's the outcome of this mission? According to Marc Ambinder's sources, getting rid of Qadaffi.

End game? Admin official says: "we have multiple scenarios, but none of them end with Qadaffi in power."

Might be nice if the President mentioned that at some point, no?

As for the US military role, right now according Vice Adm. William Gortney, Director of the Joint Staff we're taking the lead but will hand it over to our allies soon.

But echoing comments made by President Obama this afternoon, Gortney said the United States will bring its “unique capabilities” to the front end of the operation to enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone led by international partners. Gortney acknowledged that the U.S. military command and control and logistics capabilities could be tapped for the operation, as well as its aerial refueling tanker fleet.

The airstrikes began after the sun had set in Libya, delaying the damage assessment for several hours. Once coalition forces confirm that LibyaÂ’s surface to air assets have been taken out, the U.S. military could deploy Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft for the assessment, in addition to other assets, Gortney said. That would presumably include satellite imagery.

The coalition includes U.S., British, French, Italian and Canadian forces, in addition to other countries—including Arab nations—who have asked not to be named publicly yet.

Meanwhile, the President explains from Rio why we are doing this.

I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and itÂ’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.

...I've acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

This whole notion of "acting in the interests of the United States" is simply argument by assertion. What interests? How will the US be impacted at all if Gadaffi stays or goes?

If there's any "doctrine" here it's, "We are answering the calls of a threatened people." If that's really the standard we better hope like hell the North Koreans, Cubans, Chinese, Saudis, et al don't manage to get on Skype and get people on their side. If they do, we may find ourselves in a lot of wars.

Amazing that this is the President who went out for ice cream while Iranians were begging for some supportive words while they were being slaughtered by their government but now we jump into a war with no debate and no discussion of the parameters or end state.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:49 PM | Comments (684)
Post contains 544 words, total size 4 kb.

And the "No Fly Zone" opens with a French attack on Libyan...tanks. I did not know tanks could fly. It's like some governments were dishonest about the scope of this adventure from the start.

CDRSalamander takes a look at the forces in play and/or expected in the region. He seems to have more questions than answers.

If you have to project any type of power ashore with ranges such as here (see post from 01MAR) – the CVN is the indispensable ship. As we have waited to the 11th hour to do anything, I still stand by my statements from 17 days ago; without more than 1 CVN you will not have an effective NFZ-L. We don’t have that yet, and may never.

So, if that is where we stand; are we just relying on hope and best case scenarios? Is the NFZ-L just for show and a half-hearted effort? Are we ready for the time and effort for a sustained NFZ-L? Are our allies? Are we going to just let the Europeans fail as they did in AFG from Â’06-Â’08 and then try to fix it later?

Finally there is this questions that many seem to want to avoid. We set up a NFZ-L and Gadaffi still wins in the face of it; what is our Branch Plan, or Sequel? What are the second and third order effects of an ineffective NFZ-L that results in a Gadaffi win?

(Added) The Navy is preparing missile strikes against Libyan air defense targets.

FNC says the Navy has already launched missile attacks.

There are things I don't like about this mess.

First, I think it's too late or so late the job has become exponentially harder. If Obama wanted to get results, he shouldn't have had such a fetish for the UN and a French led coalition. If action were required and the best way to do it was unilaterally, then so be it. If the political fallout of that was too high, then maybe the goal isn't that important after all.

Second, as I wrote yesterday, I'm not sure what the hell we're doing. Is protecting civilians from Qadaffi the goal? If so, then we've basically signed on to a mission that will last as long as he's in power. That could be awhile.

The only way to ensure that civilians are protected from Gadaffi is to get rid of Khadaffi. Except...nobody in the administration is saying that. If the administration believes regime change is the end state of this operation, they need to be honest with the public and say that.

I fear a lot of these nations signed on to this adventure with the idea they'd buy a little grace on the cheap. Everyone thinks Qadaffi is a bad guy so why not kick him around a bit? How hard could it be? We'll feel better about ourselves, we won't look soft anymore and our new found creditability will make it easier to ignore a real problem like Iran.

Well, war (and don't let anyone fool you, this is a war) is never simple and clean. What happens if the Brits and French can't do this quickly and start to run out of assets to throw into the fight? What if in the name of the prestige of the "international community" we can't let Kadaffi win, who are they going to call for help?

All of that said, we're in it so I hope this ends quickly and well. I fear it won't.

An additional thought: People complained that Bush and Rumsfeld tried to do Iraq on the cheap and didn't commit enough forces for what came after victory (the Phase IV Operations). Well, does anyone really think that air power alone is enough depose a regime? What about the cities where Kadaffi's forces are already inside, among the population? Air power isn't going to protect them. And what if we do get rid of him? How do we know the country won't dissolve into chaos? If it does, air power isn't going to do anything about it.

It's not just the mission that worries me, it's the fact that there doesn't seemed to be a defined goal and if there's a wink and a nudge that the actual goal is getting rid of Kadaffi, well, what does that commit us to?

Again, I'm not demanding an exit strategy, that's just silly. But I do think it's reasonable to ask what's the real goal here and what are willing to do to achieve it?

Added: People are disagreeing that this is only a "no fly zone". Well the UN titled their announcement of the resolution "Security Council Approves ‘No-Fly Zone’ over Libya, Authorizing ‘All Necessary Measures’ to Protect Civilians, by Vote of 10 in Favour with 5 Abstentions"

This was sold, as much as it was to the public as a "No fly zone". If we are now saying the "all necessary measures" language is our guiding principle, then Obama has truly committed us to an open ended conflict.

Did anyone sign off on that? Was that the case that was made to the public? Did anyone suggest before the resolution was voted on that we'd be supporting or conducting offensive operations against Libyan ground forces?

Posted by: DrewM at 10:34 AM | Comments (564)
Post contains 901 words, total size 6 kb.

Forget that it's preposterous and makes no sense: Battle L.A. is a fun movie that actually has something good and positive to say about our military. Imagine that!

Since my review contains SPOILERS!!, it's below the fold. But if you just want a capsule review -- it's good fun. Not the best movie I've ever seen by any stretch, but 100 minutes of good solid war movie. Plenty of shootin', fightin', stuff blowin' up, hollerin', screamin', and just generalized alien ass-kicking.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 08:11 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 937 words, total size 6 kb.

Can you spot the errors? Another example of the fine fact checking ability of the MFM.

Cross posted at Clarion Advisory. h/t Theo Spark.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:12 AM | Comments (353)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

It's all here.

I was going to do a big linkfest and a longish rant but everything you need to know about the nuclear accident is at the link above. Just go back 3-5 pages and read every post. You'll then know more about it than 99% of the jerks on TV.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:13 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

March Madness, Part One:

I see that the cruel people who run this so-called Smart Basketball Blog couldn't even be bothered to offer up a forum for you to discuss America's Pastime today. Well, that's unacceptable. The ONT provideth:

More basketballsey goodness below the fold... more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:30 PM | Comments (725)
Post contains 440 words, total size 4 kb.

I admit, sometimes I fail to count Obama among my blessings. I am grateful to him for reminding me.

At a fundraiser:

“The first time around it’s like lightning in a bottle. There’s something special about it, because you’re defying the odds. And as time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States,” Obama said. “But we should never take it for granted.”

We should never take me for granted.

“I hope that all of you still feel that sense of excitement and that sense of possibility, because we still have so much more to do.”

Gee, I remember when a certain charismatic charlatan revved up crowds by promising we are the change we've been waiting for.

Turns out, not so much; it was in fact Obama all long.

...

“I know that sometimes people may get frustrated and think, you know what, Obama is being too nice and we need to get in there and take it to them. And there will be times where that’s important,” the president said...

That's what I'm always telling you guys -- Obama is too nice.

This is like the bullshit part of a job interview. My flaws...? Ah yes, my flaws. Sometimes I'm too detail-oriented and can't detach from work.

...
“As important as our political labels are — Democrat and Republican — as many tough fights as we’re going to have, part of what made 2008 special is we brought the country together.”

Oh, Bubby, you united 53% of the country last time. I have great hopes this time you'll unite 54-55%.

Thanks to momma and TheQuietMan.

Update [Slublog] - This story reminds me of something I created a while back. more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:08 PM | Comments (452)
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

This could actually be spin -- spin, to offer a reason for his flip-flop, to excuse away his indecisiveness, his growing reputation as the weakest president in history and spectator in chief.

So this could be a false claim by the White House, to cover up an even worse impression.

But could he really have possibly believed that sanctions -- that never work, and even when they do work, they work over a period of months and years -- would work in Libya in a week?

Did he really "realize" that a bunch of diplomantic statements and a freeze of foreign assets wasn't doing the trick?

On Tuesday, President Obama became clear that diplomatic efforts to stop the brutality of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi werenÂ’t working.

Presented with intelligence about the push of the Gadhafi regime to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the president told his national security team "what we're doing isn't stopping him.”

Some in his administration, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been pushing for stronger action, but it wasnÂ’t until Tuesday, administration sources tell ABC News, that the president became convinced sanctions and the threat of a no-fly zone wouldnÂ’t be enough.

Oh, dear God. Our President -- leader of the free world, commander in chief of the armed forces -- really thought that sanctions and a vague threat of force (while appearing very disinclined to carry out that threat) would be enough to convince a dictator to voluntarily relinquish power.

And that is the story they want out there.

The other story is that Obama just kind of doesn't make decisions for weeks at a time and then flip-flops his way into half-assed ones.

Via Hot Air.

2012 can't come fast enough. Hope for Change.

Does Obama Still Believe His 2008 Media Hype? The only think I can imagine is this: Obama is smart enough to know sanctions and "diplomacy" do not work on tyrants (never have, never will), and that tyrants are generally only hanged or run out of town with the hangman chasing them.

But he thinks he's different, because he's Lord God King Obama.

When other presidents use "diplomacy" and "strongly worded statements," of course that makes no nevermind to anyone, but when Lord God King Obma issues his pronouncements, he thinks that people are going to snap-to.

That's all I can think, that this is a defect of megalomania rather than diagnosable learning disability. Because surely no one could have possibly thought that Qaddaffy wasn't going to get all a-scared of some diplomatic communiques. Right? Right?

He's Like Some Kind of Genius! Not Hamlet -- Giligan.

Thanks to commenter Gilligan Obama.

You know what I just realized Tuesday? That some, perhaps even many, of my commenters do not post under their given names, but instead create fake monickers, often on the spur of the moment, for humorous effect.

Just realized that.

Nobel Prize me!!!

European Governments "Completely Puzzled" By Obama's Non-Position on Libya: Wait, wait, Gilligan's giving it a good three-pipe think.

At a meeting of G8 ministers about Libya, disagreement broke out.

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

It occurs to me that perhaps Obama is really, really good at thinking, just like the media promised.

But -- here's the catch -- maybe he doesn't like doing it, and so he doesn't.

Posted by: Ace at 03:07 PM | Comments (399)
Post contains 712 words, total size 5 kb.

I know you're shocked.

The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.

Read on, to see other lies Obama cooked into his budget -- for example, he apparently claimed his High Speed Trains initiative wouldn't cost any net money, because it would be paid for by "bipartisan financing" (that is -- tax increases agreed to by Republicans; um, no).

The CBO rejected this claim. (Actually, they have to; they have to project based on current law. But even if they were permitted to adjust for future contingencies, there's no way any rational analysis would predict the GOP would spend $238 billion on this crap, paid for with new taxes, just so Joe "Choo Choo" Biden can keep wearing his Big Bright Red Engineer's Cap when he plays with his toys in the basement.)

Obama's "balanced budget" claims are based on the fig-leaf he calls a primary budget -- the budget minus interest payments on past debt, which cannot be ignored, as interest will soon rival Medicare and Social Security -- which he claims will be balanced and run at less than 3% of GDP.

The CBO says that's pure bullshit, too, and that his proposed deficits will never come at less than 4% of GDP.

Posted by: Ace at 12:43 PM | Comments (335)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

So says Patterico.

He's referring to that HuffPo post by Lee Stranahan you might have seen yesterday, in which he, a liberal, actually analyzes whether the liberal media is guilty of bias and partisanship (and unamericanism to, I'd add myself) in embargoing the death threats made by liberals against conservatives.

And he answers the question unambiguously.

Why isn't the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?

Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren't considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn't just been one death threat, but a number of them.

...

After the Giffords shooting, authorities have to take this sort of threat seriously. The media should too, even if the disturbed person who sent that email was motivated by exactly the kind of rhetoric that's been used by many liberals against GOP officials over and over again during the Madison protests. And there are more threats floating around the internet, in varying degrees of scary and credible.

...

Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It's bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.

...

Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.

Of course, he's being called a traitor.

If the truth is treachery let's have more such treason.

Thanks to rdbrewer for putting this up in the sidebar.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.