General: U.S. may consider troops in Libya

[jakeXT]

Source: CBS, Associated Press

Army Gen. Carter Ham says ground forces wouldn't be ideal, but may be a possible way to aid rebels; Says current operation largely stalemated

(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.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/07/501364/main20051760.shtml

[IDemo]

1. Nobody could foresee this happening....

[Baclava]

2. NO boots on the ground! NO MORE fucking war!!!

sing it with me...

[Aryo]

3. This will never happen.

The General was out of line to suggest it without approval from the President.

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. How much you wanna bet????

[AllTooEasy]

14. $100 bucks

[joshcryer]

38. No one will take you up on it.

People are all talk.

[Aerows]

45. I'll make a deal with you

If we end up with ground troops in Libya, you have to admit you were wrong. If we don't end up with ground troops in Libya, I'll admit I was wrong for thinking we would.

I thoroughly, and completely hope that I will have to admit I was wrong.

[joshcryer]

48. That goes without saying.

It doesn't need to be said. I've been coving this for 27 days straight, I don't intend to back down and go hide from all the ridicule in the event the worst happens.

NOTE: I am talking about American troops, there may yet be British or French troops. By troops I mean occupying forces, not special forces and the like, of course. And don't be waggling your finger about CIA either, Obama was specific. No military troops on the ground in a occupying manner (ie, they can land, rescue someone, etc, do laser targeting, etc).

[Aerows]

49. I am not waggling my finger about the CIA

They have been there for a while, I am sure. I know for a fact that the UK had operatives there because they got caught.

We are on the same page - that's exactly what I mean, as an occupying force. I hope to God I'm wrong and you are right.

[joshcryer]

50. Fair enough, but I am not expecting everyone wrong to just out and say it.

I do expect one poster to do it because I know that's how they are.

But generally I expect most people to just "forget" where they stood before it began.

edit: and that's fine by me btw

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Who says he did? nt

[yourout]

4. Can you say Vietnam....two? Sure I knew you could.

[NCarolinawoman]

28. Another quagmire about to happen?

Has this general ever studied history? :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Javaman]

57. The world is becoming our Vietnam. nt

[frazzled]

5. The friggin General doesn't decide whether troops go in ...

The president does, and this time (as opposed to a NATO coordinated no-fly zone strikes) Congress would have to concur.

And this president has already said there will be no troops on the ground. General Ham seems to be yet another McChrystal type who is trying to drive policy by speaking out publicly. Ain't gonna work.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Yes, Obama's never lied, caved, changed his mind so far...

[AllTooEasy]

16. Exactly! Plus, he sighted significant negatives to ground troops that...

...make US boots on Lybian ground a very remote possibility.

[rpannier]

24. He never said he supported sending troops

He was providing an asessment to a number of questions provided by Senators.

In fact it appears he doesn't think it's a good idea:

Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

...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.

on edit: He was giving testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. His responses are what is expected. Cover all bases.
It's hardly a MCChrystal moment

[dipsydoodle]

7. Here we go.......

:{

[Billy Burnett]

8. They're chumming the water. n/t

[Plucketeer]

9. Strip that general.

Give him a discharge and drop him in there with a rifle.

[rpannier]

27. Read the article

He was giving testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He was asked a variety of questions and was asked for his assessment of the situation.

Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

[Plucketeer]

46. I realize what you're saying, but...

... what do generals live for? Why are we STILL in Afghanistan with no real end in sight - Iraq too??? Generals want to be able to reminisce about their great moments. They're programmed to want to fight. Sadly, we don't have a bunch of four-star Ghandis for military leaders.

[Aerows]

10. Boots on the ground?

Oh my. There is NO WAY anyone could have anticipated this development. Next we will find out that it was because Qaddafi was destroying oil wells.

Oh wait, I mean because Qaddafi was threatening civilians.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Goes nicely with THIS story:

Robert Gates: US Iraq troops 'could stay longer'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x837674

[AllTooEasy]

17. What development?! No authorization has been given. You are Glenn Beck paranoid.

[Aerows]

35. The article says

They might consider ground troops. I'm paranoid because I am commenting sarcastically that no one could have foreseen them considering the use of ground troops?

For God's sake, rational people have been expecting this since it began, because we all know how mission creep occurs. Qaddafi is using people as human shields, how exactly do you bomb targets without killing innocents in that case? You can't, so you have to send in ground troops.

Keep your ad hominem attacks that people are being "paranoid" because they are commenting on the fucking article that is posted to yourself. They are against the rules here.

[joshcryer]

39. "might consider," even less important than "might" or "consider" alone...

It's not "might deploy troops"

or

"consider deploying troops"

It's "might consider."

[Aerows]

44. The issue I had with the other person

was the ad hominem attack - it was unnecessary. We can discuss whether or not we think it will happen all day, and that's fine. Personal attacks, however, are not fine.

[RT Atlanta]

13. $$$ for wars; no $ for our citizens at home

that's the way it goes, right?

[MissDeeds]

25. Says a lot about values in government

doesn't it?

:mad:

[msongs]

15. Yet another commander in chief speaks up. How many do we have now? nt

[jakeXT]

20. Everyone gets his own piece of land to play, Ham has AFRICOM

while sitting in Stuttgart

[eridani]

18. Fuckfuck fuck!!!!

Denying one side an air force can possibly be justified, but weren't we all afraid that it was going to come to this?

[Fool Count]

54. Afraid? I said that it will happen as surely as night follows the day the minute

they started to bomb. I will state another certainty now: by the time all the scores are tallied
this "humanitarian" intervention will result in at least ten times the amount of deaths, suffering
and misery than letting Qaddafi get his easy victory over the rebels would cause. Another easy prediction:
two years after NATO troops depose Qaddafi and occupy Libya even those Libyans who are now against
Qaddafi will be ruing the day they started this mess and remembering their comfortable middle-class
lives under his regime with fondness and nostalgia. Who would they blame for their poverty-stricken
and hopeless existence then? Themselves? Hardly. USA and NATO- definitely.

[David__77]

19. Trial balloon!

If this wasn't a planned trial balloon, I'm sure we can expect a reiteration of the commitment not to send any ground forces into Libya.

[Vinee]

22. How unsurprising. nt

[gratuitous]

23. NBC has picked this up, too

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

AJDABIYAH, Libya — The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday, describing the ongoing operation as a stalemate that is more likely to go on now that America has handed control to NATO.

But Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers that American participation in a ground force would not be ideal, since it could erode the international coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Well, I've been reliably informed that there's no how, no way this could or would happen, so I fully expect to see a story about how General Ham has been summarily cashiered, and his military career is d-u-n-n over.

Right?

[NCarolinawoman]

26. NO! n/t

[Paper Roses]

29. Like we didn't know this was coming!! n/t

[indimuse]

30. LOL!

next party---Syria! ;)

[daleo]

31. But just a few days ago the U.S. contribution was supposed to be over

That didn't last long. I guess I will be sending by Blue Plate Special crow dinner back to the kitchen.

[plumbob]

32. I said this would happen the moment our limited offshore role

was announced. I'll say the first US boots hit the ground before Easter the 24th of this month. Anybody else want in the pool?

[bhikkhu]

33. The president said "no boots on the ground"

so I'm going to go out on a limb and take him at his word.

Hoping for the best, but paying attention!

[trud]

34. there are already feet on the ground

the CIA "advisers" are in there.

Oh, what a surprise. Who could have ever seen this coming.

[bhikkhu]

41. The CIA are always there...

I could get all cynical about it, but maybe another day. I really hope in this case it all turns out well.

[joshcryer]

42. That's my view, too. CIA is embedded everywhere.

Obama said no to troops and I believe him on that.

UK and France can give troops if they want.

[Alamuti Lotus]

56. "CIA is embedded everywhere" -- does that concern you at all?

[SoulSearcher]

58. Not only CIA, Special Forces too

Before Iraq invasion. these specially trained groups were outside
Baghdad sleeping under the sand, recon reporting on troop strengths,
location, etc.

I have no doubt SF's has been in Libya for some time. But their
mission, like CIA is totally different. The fact that Obama just deployed
2200 Marines last Monday to a Naval vessel off Libyan coast is the
worry. Only a few stories about this in mainstream news.

[joshcryer]

37. I agree, he wants to get reelected.

A few hundred if not thousand dead soldiers in Libya* won't bode well for that.

*Afghanistan and Iraq are far from the MSM's radar so it won't be relevant.

[Doctor_J]

62. Guantanamo, Public Option, torture...

That limb is very thin

[bamacrat]

36. I am at a loss for words......

I wanted to come up with my own clever way of saying how stupid this is but, well, there are no words. When will the tea baggers and fucktards in this country join us in demanding the ends of the wars. That is the only way our economy/country will survive.

[SoulSearcher]

60. Not exactly what i heard

Talked to a couple at a Superbowl party, the guy was
military, and hated war. He said he joined the TP's because
the D & R's had both lost their way. He was pilot in Iraq, and
and Afghanistan, shot at, but no harm to him. He said the last
thing any sane person wants is a war, and that is why he joined
the TP's. Recall this was a party, the discussion changed back to
the game, so I don't know the details, nor did I ask. Just that he
had been to war, come back, and didn't mention it again. Not sure
how that works for you, or me either for that matter. Sounds like
they are not all the same, but I realize that was just one person.

[Arrowhead2k1]

40. What's so surprising? The powers that be decided that Gaddafi should go.

Therefore, he must.

[joshcryer]

43. The people of Libya decided that.

Just like the people of the Ivory Coast.

Only in the Ivory Cost the Beck supported guy didn't have as much powerful weaponry and once the UN bombed the few heavy weapons he did have, he went to his bunker (and will remain holed up there for maybe a few weeks tops).

[LetTimmySmoke]

47. My colleague predicted this 3 weeks ago.

We all know what the "vital areas to be secured" will be.

If any of you have netflix, look up "Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash." These military expeditions are only going to increase as oil supply diminishes and demand remains high.

[classysassy]

51. Where do we keep finding money

for these insane wars?

[Alamuti Lotus]

52. Ham's superior Robert Gates: No US 'boots on ground' in Libya 'as long as I'm in this job'

I guess General Ham is looking to overthrow or at least embarass his boss, with this kind of blatent insubordination.

[jakeXT]

53. When I read that I had to think about his sheduled retirement in 2011

Robert Gates to Retire in 2011
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/16/robert-gates-to-retire-in-2011-3-dilemmas-he-leaves-behind/

[No Elephants]

55. Well, if U.S. troops do go into Libya, they won't be wearing boots. We know that.

[SoulSearcher]

59. 2200 Marines, with Boots, are offshore Libya NOW

For some reason, mainstream folks are not running this story,
seems like a major step toward readiness for something big.
(Check the story dates )

http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/03/2200-marines-go-to-libya-what-happened-to-no-boots-on-the-ground.html

[BrightKnight]

61. Go in, get the job done and get out. There is something to be said

for that. There is no way to win the current stalemate and leaving him in place is not a good option. Defeating him militarily is a relatively small operation.

Mathematically the the opposition forces are not nearly strong enough. A 30 to 1 ratio with little training and discipline is not going to solve anything. Dragging it out for years would be too costly in every way.

Take him out, declare victory and go home.

[howaboutme]

67. Where have I heard that before?

Why must it be USA Marines? Why aren't the countries in the Middle East all participating in this civil war. It affects them not us.

[Marblehead]

63. It's official

The MIC can do whatever it wants and not have to answer to anyone...

[sarcasmo]

64. Was there ever any doubt? Another BILLION dollar a month war.

[howaboutme]

66. Who's pushing the I want more war button and why?

When are we going to learn that we need to take care of the USA and fuck the entire Middle East.

The way you end this BS is to implement a 10% war tax on the wealthiest Americans for every war zone that is initiated.

Where is the 30% war tax on the billionaire hedge fund guys?

[and-justice-for-all]

65. I have had it with this fucking war shit!!!! nt