So is the US now playing only a supporting role in Libya?

[Vattel]

From Obama's Libya speech: "This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role — including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly."

When does the supporting role stuff begin? Or has it begun already? Will we really only provide intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and communications jamming?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. The lies are so outrageous at this point, you have to assume

it's all psyops & bullshit.

[amandabeech]

2. Reuters reports that the CIA has been in there for awhile.

Maybe that's "intelligence" but it is US feet on the ground, and I think that the speech was not clear on purpose.

I think that clarity is needed here, not obfuscation.

Also reported, Obama is considering sending arms to the Saudis and Qattaris and let them send the arms to the Libyans.

Obama also reported, somewhat dubiously, to be considering sending mercenaries as "advisors" to teach the rebel Libyans how to fight. They simply do not know anything about war.

[Vattel]

4. I agree that his speech was anything but clear.

I'm tired of political speeches in general: no detailed arguments to be found; no analysis; a lot of silly rhetoric. Personally, I'd like to know if Obama thinks the rebels will prevail, why he thinks that, what he is willing to do to ensure that they do prevail, what he thinks the chances are for a better government in Libya if they do prevail, etc, etc, etc.

[amandabeech]

5. I'd love to hear a speech like that one you described.

It would be nice to be treated by an adult by our politicians, for a change.

[Vattel]

7. Exactly! It's so freakin' insulting.

Do politicans really believe that we are all so dumb that we can't understand the reasoning behind their decisions?

[amandabeech]

10. The really scarey part might be that they don't understane the reasoning

behind their own decisions.

[sad sally]

8. Good mercenaries vs bad mercenaries - might get messy.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. NATO's the beard

It's our great leadership while just being a part of a true coalition as we fight a non-war that's not picking sides in what isn't a civil war to not unseat a tyrant.

Clear?

[craigmatic]

6. Hell no we're all the way behind this. This whole thing has CIA written all over it.

I assume we're giving the rebels their guns.

[harun]

9. Lies lies lies lies lies.

[hack89]

11. France and Britain alone have enough strike aircraft

and precision weapons to handle the actually shooting. They don't need American planes to bomb things. More to the point I don't think they want us to - all NATO militates are facing budget cuts and this is a good opportunity to enhance their images at home.

[bigwillq]

12. If that's what you want to believe (nt)