US Senate discusses sending troops to Libya

[Hannah Bell]

Gen. Carter Ham told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Wednesday that US troops may have to be sent to Libya because there is little chance of the opposition Transitional National Council (TNC) defeating the forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Ham, who led the coalition air campaign in Libya before NATO took over, made clear that he was not personally in favour of such an outcome. He was responding to questioning from Republican senators, such as John McCain, who have been scathing towards what they call the half-hearted pursuit of the war in Libya by the Obama administration. Asked about the chance the opposition could “fight their way” to Tripoli and replace Gaddafi, Ham replied: “Sir, I would assess that as a low likelihood.”

Pressed by McCain on whether the situation was either a stalemate or an “emerging stalemate,” Ham said, “Senator, I would agree with that at present on the ground.” A stalemate appeared “more likely” today than it did at the outset of the air campaign on March 19, he said.

Ham’s testimony pointed to an escalation of the war, while reflecting the pressing concerns of sections of the US military and political establishment. Testimony given by others was more damaging to the US propaganda used to justify the bombardment of Libya—and received far less media attention.
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a State Department official in the first two years of the administration of George W. Bush, rejected claims that military intervention was necessary to prevent a civilian massacre by Gaddafi’s regime. “First, it is not clear that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi,” he said in his prepared statement to the committee...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/liby-a09.shtml

[xchrom]

1. are france and england having the same conversation? nt

[Gravel Democrat]

2. ^^^

"The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure."
George Washington

[pokerfan]

13. ^^^

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Barack Obama

[Tx4obama]

15. Obama did NOT unilaterally authorize a military attack. The UN imposed the NoFlyZone. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

18. The U.S. is not required to enforce U.N. resolutions, so congressional authorization is still needed

[Jmaxfie1]

16. That's what "police actions" are for ;) n/t

[FLAprogressive]

19. Even "police actions" took place with congressional authorization.

[Jmaxfie1]

21. true, that's why I did the smiley. But either way, this is a bad idea. n/t

[newfie11]

3. and where are these troops coming from

Our troops are already fighting 2 wars. Not to mention the money we don't have!
I guess it will be good for the war making corporations!

[WhiteTara]

5. well, since they're killing all other jobs

we have a fine young crop of teens to fill the slots.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Empire stuck on "repeat".

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Oh, for fuck sake!

Are we at critical mass yet????? :mad:

[ellie]

7. This is completely unacceptable

I have written the Obama administration about these wars, not that they care, but this is ridiculous.

Obama/Biden 2012 - Now with 50% more war!

[Baclava]

8. ...to the shores of Tripoli

"Expanding NATO’s declared mission to ousting Gaddafi would necessitate a “pretty significant increase” in the military effort and “probably” require coalition troops and spies, he added. It would require “military forces to be able to act on very, very short notice.”


"Days not weeks" - c'mon, it's just a little 'no-fly zone' - we'll be done in a jiffy.

[Jmaxfie1]

17. That's the problem, we were criticized for not making a no fly zone soon enough...

we will be criticized wethier or not we we send in troops. Personally I'm against sending in troops.

[Moondog]

9. Seriously, did anyone NOT see this coming?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

[Prometheus Bound]

11. Perhaps people under 20 years old.

Some may not yet have had enough opportunity to see how the world works.

[Moondog]

12. Yes, OK, I can see your point. It's been a long time since

I was 20. Long enough that I'd forgotten.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Will they be issued bunny slippers to replace the boots?

[The Northerner]

14. K&R

[FLAprogressive]

20. What a shock....not. I'm sure if this gets done w/o congressional approval the cheerleaders will

cheer even harder.