military action against Libya

That is pure insanity. Obama has lost it, it that's true.

That's a lot better. By the way Cyclo, the rationale for this operation was never, at least overtly, to militarily support the rebels. The only official rationale was to protect civilians.

And without some sort of ground forces, it's difficult to see how his ability to wage war can be defeated.

Ah - I read in this article that this is a Harrier support group. They may not be 'on the ground' at all.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ah - I read in this article that this is a Harrier support group. They may not be 'on the ground' at all.

Cycloptichorn

A Marine MEU and the ships that go with it comprise about 2300 ground troops (a large battalion) ; logistics & command support; a large helo squadron, sometimes including Harrier aircraft, all embarked on ships designed to support them and an amphibious operation - including a helo/Harrier carrier. It is the smallest sized 'standard' Marine expiditionary unit. Sending them to the Mediterranean early in this situation is not particularly unusual, and, as I interpret things, may merely be a prudent precaution in case we have to extract someone from Libya or do something like that. Their aircraft capability, though relatively short range, could be very useful in a country like Libya with so much of its infrastructure immediately along its long coastline - more or less as Cyclo infersd.

I think it is too early to conclude that President Obama has "lost it" or has no coherent plan at all. However, it is clear that he (and we) are being drawn into something we can't readily control and that was (1) started too late; (2) far too rhetorically qualified and limited to scare a tyrant with no where else to go; (3) fails to address the fact that this is the responsibility of the Arab nations themselves - not ours; and finally (4) is a major distraction from other more important issues.

is a major distraction from other more important issues.

I agree with all your points except for #1. If the whole thing was a bad idea, we certainly didn't start making mistkes too late.

I think point #1 is just a way for Republicans who were calling for an attack to continue to criticize him, even though he basically did what they wanted.

Cycloptichorn

I think point #1 is just a way for Republicans who were calling for an attack to continue to criticize him, even though he basically did what they wanted.

And now evidently the Germans are backing out

A very weak and laughable rationalization. Obama did what he chose to do, and he is responsible for those choices. There were both Republican and Democrat voices urging more action and others from both sources urging less.

"I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces."

, "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening.... All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening."