49

Parse this, Gadhafi


 

From a White House transcript of a briefing by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications:

 

Q    Ben, do you agree that the need to protect civilians lasts as long as Qaddafi is in power?

 

MR. RHODES:  The need to protect civilians lasts as long as civilians are under risk of attack in the way in which we’ve seen them attacked over the course of the last several weeks.

 

***

On Twitter at luizachsavage


 
Filed under:

Parse this, Gadhafi

  1. Ha – the Americans have already shot some of the rebels themselves.

  2. Ha – the Americans have already shot some of the rebels themselves.

    • I think that's exactly what he meant. Ties that all up in a neat little bow.

  3. I think that's exactly what he meant. Ties that all up in a neat little bow.

  4. This is the most confusing war in history. Nobody knows the goal, nobody knows the strategy, nobody knows the tactics, including the players. The allies cannot agree who's in charge. The Italians are threatening to pull their bases if NATO's not put in charge but it's impossible to put NATO in charge due to opposition from Turkey and Greece. They allies cannot agree what the goals are. It's a complete mad-house. Thanks Obama!

  5. This is the most confusing war in history. Nobody knows the goal, nobody knows the strategy, nobody knows the tactics, including the players. The allies cannot agree who's in charge. The Italians are threatening to pull their bases if NATO's not put in charge but it's impossible to put NATO in charge due to opposition from Turkey and Greece. They allies cannot agree what the goals are. It's a complete mad-house. Thanks Obama!

    • I think that's true of most wars….they are often won by sheer dumb luck ya know.

      Don't blame Obama for it though….twas Sarkozy and Cameron

      • I see, so you're saying that Sarkozy and Cameron run the American military? Or you're saying the Americans are not involved? I could have sworn that the Americans were doing most of the attacking.

    • I'm trying to play catch up with the news. Why does Italy want NATO in charge instead of the UN?

      • Of the military part….it remains a UN mission

        They need one command, command structure, language etc….not 20 countries doing their own thing.

        • Well, obviously. And obviously they need someone in charge of command and control. And again, obviously, the Americans want to give that role up as soon as they possibly can. But since NATO is made up of countries exactly the same way as the UN is, and since it will be a country's general or whatever at the head of command and control, and since the countries involved here are in both NATO and the UN, what difference does it make?

          I'm not getting it.

      • Well, the UN is not in charge. The UN security council has authorized it, but certainly the UN has no military, and has no command-and-control structure to run a war (they do have their peacekeepers, but they are not equipped to run a war, and they do not have authorization to be involved). So the UN is not in charge. NATO does have the capacity for this. NATO has done it before. I'm not sure why Italy wants NATO in charge. In fact, I read that The US, Britain, Italy and Norway all want to put NATO in charge. I suppose this would be because it becomes a coalition mission, and that way none of the individual countries are in charge, and they don't have to figure out a new coalition to figure out who's in charge, and best of all NATO has a command-and-control structure in place.

        Now Germany is pulling out of NATO, the Italians are arguing with the French, and chaos reigns.

        This is the most ridiculous war in history.

        • Really? The Americans getting dragged kicking and screaming into Yugoslavia was any different?

          • Yes, it was a lot different.

  6. I think that's true of most wars….they are often won by sheer dumb luck ya know.

    Don't blame Obama for it though….twas Sarkozy and Cameron

  7. I see, so you're saying that Sarkozy and Cameron run the American military? Or you're saying the Americans are not involved? I could have sworn that the Americans were doing most of the attacking.

  8. Cheesuz…..Sarky started bombing before the conference was even over, and Cameron has pushed it from the beginning. That has nothing whatever to do with Obama.

    Stop watching Fox news.

  9. I am not sure how you can claim this is even the most confusing of recent wars. There was already a war going on in Libya: the US, Italians, English and us Canadians simply chose a side rather than sit on the sideline. The hope is limited engagement that removes some of Qaddafi's technological advantages will give his opponents a chance to win the conflict. Of course, in this case win would more likely be large scale abandonment by Qaddafi's troops rather than a straightforward military win.

    Compared to Afghanistan or Iraq, neither of which had a credible exit strategy at their onset, this case constitutes a plan albeit a long shot at complete success.

  10. Obama is doing a great job, a great job hiding behind some Arab League/French cover, the man who voted "present" is still voting present and making sure he keeps a lot of distance between himself and the decision to go to war, Coward.

  11. Oh do stop with the nonsense. He's already fighting two wars….and this isn't a war, it's a no-fly zone

    It's a joint UN operation, not an American one. He's just lent planes to the effort.

  12. I'm trying to play catch up with the news. Why does Italy want NATO in charge instead of the UN?

  13. Of the military part….it remains a UN mission

    They need one command, command structure, language etc….not 20 countries doing their own thing.

  14. I'm just happy he found a few minutes to get to it. I mean, what with the vacation in Brazil and having to do the NCAA men's AND women's college brackets…I'm floored. That's almost a full time job right there. Where does he find the time?

  15. I'm just happy he found a few minutes to get to it. I mean, what with the vacation in Brazil and having to do the NCAA men's AND women's college brackets…I'm floored. That's almost a full time job right there. Where does he find the time?

    • He probably calls Europe in-between games during March Madness.

      "Bonjour Nicholas, I've got a few minutes til the next tip-off, have I missed anything in Libya?"

  16. Well, obviously. And obviously they need someone in charge of command and control. And again, obviously, the Americans want to give that role up as soon as they possibly can. But since NATO is made up of countries exactly the same way as the UN is, and since it will be a country's general or whatever at the head of command and control, and since the countries involved here are in both NATO and the UN, what difference does it make?

    I'm not getting it.

  17. The Americans aren't in charge….nor do they want to be. [A first for them]

    The leadership is joint at the moment…it's been called 'hybrid'

    So they want a structure…one they're familiar with, and that everybody can follow

    NATO is military, the UN is not
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

  18. Oh, I see . . . sort of.

    So, let's say England takes command and control. If they used the NATO procedures everybody already knows, that makes it a NATO military thing? They can't just 'borrow' NATO procedures for leadership of the UN mission?

  19. Oh, I see . . . sort of.

    So, let's say England takes command and control. If they used the NATO procedures everybody already knows, that makes it a NATO military thing? They can't just 'borrow' NATO procedures for leadership of the UN mission?

    • England could take control…or France…or anybody really, as long as everyone is in agreement.

      But it's a military operation….and only NATO, the military specialists….know all the procedures and structures of a joint military group.

      It would move it from politicians showing off, and give it to a military group trained for this kind of thing.

      Not a collection of military people from 20 different countries….a set known group. Not the Brit airforce, and the Italian air force and the French airforce etc….NATO specifically.

      Whether NATO is willing or able….since they have their hands full at the moment…is another matter.

      • "as long as everyone is in agreement."

        You've missed the forest for the trees. That's the whole problem! There is no agreement whatsoever! They can't agree agree what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and why!

        • I said ANYONE could run it as long as everyone is in agreement….that doesn't mean there IS an agreement.

          At the moment it's the UK, France and the US…. the US is pulling out within days, and many countries want NATO to run it….but all 28 members of NATO will have to agree to it.

  20. So the Americans are not there. I see. All the networks, for some reason, seem to think the Americans are involved. But you are claiming "That has nothing whatever to do with Obama". I thought he was the president.

  21. So the Americans are not there. I see. All the networks, for some reason, seem to think the Americans are involved. But you are claiming "That has nothing whatever to do with Obama". I thought he was the president.

    • Playing the game of 'Dumb Dora' is a favorite pastime with Cons…I find it boring. Ciao.

      • This from the same person who said "wars are often won by sheer dumb luck ya know"

        • They often are. Even WWII was a near run thing.

  22. England could take control…or France…or anybody really, as long as everyone is in agreement.

    But it's a military operation….and only NATO, the military specialists….know all the procedures and structures of a joint military group.

    It would move it from politicians showing off, and give it to a military group trained for this kind of thing.

    Not a collection of military people from 20 different countries….a set known group. Not the Brit airforce, and the Italian air force and the French airforce etc….NATO specifically.

    Whether NATO is willing or able….since they have their hands full at the moment…is another matter.

  23. Playing the game of 'Dumb Dora' is a favorite pastime with Cons…I find it boring. Ciao.

  24. Well, the UN is not in charge. The UN security council has authorized it, but certainly the UN has no military, and has no command-and-control structure to run a war (they do have their peacekeepers, but they are not equipped to run a war, and they do not have authorization to be involved). So the UN is not in charge. NATO does have the capacity for this. NATO has done it before. I'm not sure why Italy wants NATO in charge. In fact, I read that The US, Britain, Italy and Norway all want to put NATO in charge. I suppose this would be because it becomes a coalition mission, and that way none of the individual countries are in charge, and they don't have to figure out a new coalition to figure out who's in charge, and best of all NATO has a command-and-control structure in place.

    Now Germany is pulling out of NATO, the Italians are arguing with the French, and chaos reigns.

    This is the most ridiculous war in history.

  25. You just made all of that up. Nobody has claimed "is limited engagement that removes some of Qaddafi's technological advantages will give his opponents a chance to win the conflict". Nobody has any idea if they're even capable of that. Where will they get their arms from? How many rebels are there? Are they united? They were just about totally routed by Gadhafi when the Western powers got involved. They have no military!

    In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Western powers would have no idea how to help them because they would not even know who to talk to!

    You've just made up a whole crock of s***.

    "chose a side rather than sit on the sideline"

    You can't just choose a side. Every country in the world has chosen a side, much like Obama has chosen his NCAA picks. If you're involved in a war, there's a lot more to it than choosing sides. LOL

  26. You just made all of that up. Nobody has claimed "is limited engagement that removes some of Qaddafi's technological advantages will give his opponents a chance to win the conflict". Nobody has any idea if they're even capable of that. Where will they get their arms from? How many rebels are there? Are they united? They were just about totally routed by Gadhafi when the Western powers got involved. They have no military!

    In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Western powers would have no idea how to help them because they would not even know who to talk to!

    You've just made up a whole crock of s***.

    "chose a side rather than sit on the sideline"

    You can't just choose a side. Every country in the world has chosen a side, much like Obama has chosen his NCAA picks. If you're involved in a war, there's a lot more to it than choosing sides. LOL

  27. "as long as everyone is in agreement."

    You've missed the forest for the trees. That's the whole problem! There is no agreement whatsoever! They can't agree agree what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and why!

  28. I said ANYONE could run it as long as everyone is in agreement….that doesn't mean there IS an agreement.

    At the moment it's the UK, France and the US…. the US is pulling out within days, and many countries want NATO to run it….but all 28 members of NATO will have to agree to it.

  29. This from the same person who said "wars are often won by sheer dumb luck ya know"

  30. They often are. Even WWII was a near run thing.

  31. He probably calls Europe in-between games during March Madness.

    "Bonjour Nicholas, I've got a few minutes til the next tip-off, have I missed anything in Libya?"

  32. Really? The Americans getting dragged kicking and screaming into Yugoslavia was any different?

  33. Yes, it was a lot different.

Sign in to comment.