Hillary hints about arming Libyan rebels, NATO commander wonders about peacekeepers

posted at 5:00 pm on March 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Repeat as necessary: It’s not a war. But given the news today about a quietly expanding air campaign, possible weapons shipments to the rebels, and maybe even ground troops down the line, it surely isn’t a “time-limited, scope-limited military action” anymore either. We need a new euphemism. How about a “Flexible, Unified Bombardment/Air Reaction”?

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country…

But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: “It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time.”…

Signs of a growing international support for arming the rebels was highlighted by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, who was the most senior Arab politician to attend the summit. Al-Thani, whose country is providing military aircraft to help patrol the no-fly zone over Libya, said: “We did not discuss [arming the rebels] – definitely [at the conference]. But our opinion is that we have to evaluate the air strikes after a while to see if it is effective to protect the people of Libya or not.

British foreign minister William Hague told reporters later that the subject of arming the rebels never came up, which makes me wonder which international conference on Libya he was attending this morning. As for peacekeepers, the latest spin from the White House is that they’re not pushing explicitly for regime change because if we bump off Qaddafi then we’ll “have a far greater ownership over what comes next” in Libya. It’s the Powell doctrine, in other words: If we “break” Libya by putting the Mad Dog down, then we’ve bought it. Haven’t we already bought it, though, by aligning ourselves with the rebels? Does anyone think the west is going to allow a total power vacuum in Tripoli, knowing that if fundamentalists seize the initiative and fill it, Obama and Sarkozy and Cameron et al. will be blamed for handing an oil-rich country over to jihadis? Admiral Stavridis is already facing reality about the aftermath:

During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Adm. James Stavridis about NATO putting forces into “post-Gadhafi” Libya to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart. Stavridis said he “wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet.” But because of NATO’s history of putting peacekeepers in the Balkans — as pictured above — “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists.”…

The new prospect of NATO force on the ground in Libya seemed to alarm Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who got Stavridis to say that there’s “no discussion of the insertion of ground troops” in NATO circles. (And “to my knowledge” there aren’t troops there now, he said.) But Stavridis told Reed that the memory of the long NATO peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans is “in everyone’s mind.”

Emphasis on “long.” If you missed this excellent TNR piece by Steven Metz last week on the inevitability of an insurgency in Libya — no matter which side wins — read it now. A lot of western (and possibly Arab) nations may be asked to place troops in the middle of that and not all may be as resolute about seeing this through as they are right now. I wonder what The One’s paeans to coalitions and multilateralism will sound like once some of our European allies start bugging out. For that reason, perhaps, and in order to speed the outcome of this war along without much further escalation, NATO countries are talking openly today about offering Qaddafi a cushy exile beyond the reach of any international tribunals. Susan Rice refused to rule it out on ABC this morning and Italian diplomats reportedly are trying to convince some African country to take him, packaged no doubt with a hefty cash payment from grateful western nations. The thinking, I assume, is that if Qaddafi bugs out semi-voluntarily rather than ends up being killed, it’ll make his loyalists in Tripoli and elsewhere less vengeful towards the new government. Could be. Or it could be that the fact that he’s still alive and safe somewhere on the continent will keep the flames of devotion burning. Quite a gamble.

I’ll leave you with this new data from Pew. A near-majority support the mission right now, 47 percent in favor versus 36 percent against. But doubts are already beginning to grow…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Quagmire!

FloatingRock on March 29, 2011 at 5:01 PM

We need a new euphemism. How about a “Flexible, Unified Bombardment/Air Reaction”?

F.U.B.A.R.? Not bad, AP.

But nothing will ever top the one in Naked Gun 2 1/2 for the pro-nuclear power group: the Key Atomic Benefits Office of Mankind….KABOOM.

Doughboy on March 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM

fubar? yep, that covers it

DrW on March 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

watching rachel maddow last night was precious…she’s so TORN between her Obamadolitry and her desire to scream No Blood For Oil…it’s delicious irony which i’m enjoying by the cup full.

DrW on March 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

But how does the press feel?

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2011 at 5:07 PM

For that reason, perhaps, and in order to speed the outcome of this war along without much further escalation, NATO countries are talking openly today about offering Qaddafi a cushy exile beyond the reach of any international tribunals. Susan Rice refused to rule it out on ABC this morning and Italian diplomats reportedly are trying to convince some African country to take him, packaged no doubt with a hefty cash payment from grateful western nations.

Rush was discussing this earlier. He thought this outcome would benefit Obama, but I disagree. The idea that the man who ordered the deaths of countless Americans through terrorist acts being allowed to live out his remaining years in a life of luxury with full immunity will not sit well with most folks.

Qaddafi is either killed or arrested or this ends up being a political and foreign policy nightmare for Obama.

Doughboy on March 29, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Just get the hell out and quit providing cover for Islamist radicals.

We’ve lost one jet already. Thank goodness the crew was rescued.

darwin on March 29, 2011 at 5:07 PM

… in a desert country far far away,

the Obama administration has gone down the path

towards the dark side of the force …

Freddy on March 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Yep, I indicated fubar just the other day. This thing has all the makings of a major embarrassment. Of course, it was directedby a major embarrassment.

BKeyser on March 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Hillary Clinton has paved the way for the United States to arm the Libyan rebels by declaring that the recent UN security council resolution relaxed an arms embargo on the country…

The U.S. doesn’t know what to do with all that extra cash, having balanced the budget, taken care of the debt, the deficit, having a budget for last year, and for this year, and the next, and etc.

Also, Hillary was for the Iraq war, before she was against it.

She looks and acts like a kitchen rag that hasn’t been laundered in a month. Don’t trust her any more than you trust Obama.

They’ve both gone mad.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

so wait, we’re arming rebels and bombing qdafy just because there was a chance he was going to do what again? Cleanse his own people?
This is Clintonic wag the dog idiocy: pick a civil war, choose a side, bombs away.

joeindc44 on March 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

This is bull. And the MSM is doing little to nothing to question this WAR. Should we prosecute MSNBC for war crimes?

MeatHeadinCA on March 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Both sides in Libya and the region hate you and your kids.

Don’t waste any blood and treasure on thosw who’ll kill you, no matter which side survives.

Obama aids only semi-secularist rulers, while empowering the others. See Iran. Wake up while you can.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

“Flexible, Unified Bombardment/Air Reaction”?

F’d up but action required…not bad, AP.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:16 PM

the latest spin from the White House is that they’re not pushing explicitly for regime change because if we bump off Qaddafi then we’ll “have a far greater ownership over what comes next” in Libya.

Winning. The. Future.

We have no explicit goals therefore we cannot be held responsible for the consequences of our actions. Is that really our policy?

Ted Torgerson on March 29, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Nice,

Who starts a war, we had nothing to with in the middle of a budget crisis?

Maybe the Rebels can join SEIU and fund it that way. /s

Oil Can on March 29, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Obama to announce his rerun on April 14, 2011.

Atlas Shrugged to play on April 15, 2011.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM

She looks and acts like a kitchen rag that hasn’t been laundered in a month. Don’t trust her any more than you trust Obama.

They’ve both gone mad.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Why has she let her appearance go to he11 lately? Depression? Pending retirement? On the outs with Billy-boy?

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Fedex couldn’t keep up with all the shipments needed if we’re going to deliver weapons to every group of protesters who get shot up by some Arabic or African thuggish leader.

michaelo on March 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Might almost be worth sending them some stuff just to watch the rebels trying to operate it,..which of course, leads to the question of U.S. advisors, trainers, etc, all barefoot because we have been assured no boots on the ground.

a capella on March 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Why has she let her appearance go to he11 lately? Depression? Pending retirement? On the outs with Billy-boy?

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

To appear important. Instead she looks schlampert. Even Albright looked more put together, so help you. Her advisers are scared of her or she let them go.

The entire admin. is mad.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Quick, underceij and crr need to come in and tell us that we’re just too stupid to understand the incredibly NUANCED plans of BHO.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

The co-presidency, or co-dependency, of Hillary/Barrack…He’s likely promising her the moon to stay on for his re-election, at least until after Nov. 2012.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Excuse me but wasn’t Hillary one of the people crying about American guns ending up in Mexico….?
Now she want’s to arm rebels and possibly Al-Qaeda members to go out and kill people.
Do we get the guns back when it’s all over ?

NeoKong on March 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Shrill is looking less butch and greasy these days. What’s up with that?

OmahaConservative on March 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM

Why has she let her appearance go to he11 lately? Depression? Pending retirement? On the outs with Billy-boy?

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

To appear important. Instead she looks schlampert. Even Albright looked more put together, so help you. Her advisers are scared of her or she let them go.

The entire admin. is mad.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Lolz.

I thought and said the same thing for months, but lately she has cleaned up a bit. She started washing and combing that greasy hair and ironing her pantsuits. Bet she even has a neutral odor about her instead of smelling like a nasty ol’ barfly.

OmahaConservative on March 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM

the combined IQ of Hillary and Obama is less than 200

georgealbert on March 29, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Smart move Hillary./sarc.

Since the rebels have links to al qaeda, they can use the weapons to kill all the weapons to slaughter the remaining Christians and Jews if they take over.

Honey, you are as dumb as your thighs are huge.

bw222 on March 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

the combined IQ of Hillary and Obama is less than 200

georgealbert on March 29, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Do I hear 120?

bw222 on March 29, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Hmmmmmm…

Mission creep?

UN in control of our military?

Trillions in debt?

Petrobras, but we can’t drill for our own oil?

If I didn’t know any better…

… I would think all of this would be part of a bigger picture.

“It also is designed to put America in its place – part of a multilateral world the way Soros wants it.”

Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Allah: How about a “Flexible, Unified Bombardment/Air Reaction”?

Not very creative, Allah. How about:
Flexible Undefined Campaign of Killing – Unknown Parameters

Splashman on March 29, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Obama to announce his rerun on April 14, 2011.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Oh crap. Thanks for ruining my b-day, obaka!

ladyingray on March 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM

But, but… Obama told us it was already “mission accomplished” last night!

LOL, eat it, leftie beeyotches. I’ll be reminding you of this the remainder of the time we’re in Libya.

Midas on March 29, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Quick, underceij and crr need to come in and tell us that we’re just too stupid to understand the incredibly NUANCED plans of BHO.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Except for Albania, who helped with Bush’s coalition but not with this one. Making this coalition LOL-Worthy.

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM

“Flexible, Unified Bombardment/Air Reaction”?

F’d up but action required…not bad, AP.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Oops, I missed that. Okay, I’ll give Allah props for creativity.

Splashman on March 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Obama to announce his rerun on April 14, 2011.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Right before tax day – how appropriate. I hope the GOP are already writing and recording their commercials to begin airing 60 seconds after his announcement…

Midas on March 29, 2011 at 5:50 PM

It’s the complete opposite of the kind of military action we opposed in Iraq. Here there’s an imminent threat to both the stability of the region and the citizens of the Libyan nation, and we have broad international support.

crr6 on March 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

LOL – careful, you’ve got a little Obama something on your chin there…

Midas on March 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM

ok, what arms would we give the rebels?

we can’t get them trained up on anything very complicated, so tanks, howitzers and choppers are out. AK’s they seem to have.

so what’s left..mortars? anti tank missle systems (TOW right?) heavy machine guns?

DrW on March 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Why has she let her appearance go to he11 lately? Depression? Pending retirement? On the outs with Billy-boy?

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Actually, I think that’s about bas good as she can look. She doesn’t have much to work with. How do you disguise 38 inch thighs? At least she isn’t wearing her Hertz pantssuit.

bw222 on March 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I have no problem taking out Qdafy but it seems we’re just killing people without any real reason. Oh, and who the heck are these rebels anyway?

joeindc44 on March 29, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Of course the rebels would never hurt any innocent civilians with those weapons on purpose…never.

/s

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

It’s all about protecting the civilians.

Because, nothing makes civilians safer than a long stalemated civil war.

Jeez. We should have either stayed out, or (my preference) bumped off Gadaffi early on when the rebels had the initiative and were less dominated by islamists. Instead, we’re turning this situation into a slow meat grinder, like post-Soviet Afghanistan. What could possibly go wrong?

sandberg on March 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM

So I guess we can mark this as yet another topic where trolls dare not tread, eh?

I don’t blame them, this Libyan policy is damn near impossible to defend.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Hillary Clinton is irresponsible for even hinting that anyone should be arming these “rebels.” What? Does she have stock market inside information on munitions factories now?

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM

AlJazeera:

11:10pm Al-Arabiya television reports that two explosions have shaken the Aziziyah gate area of Tripoli.

.

Timestamp:
11:05pm Anita McNaught in Tripoli reports that the airstrikes in the Tajoura district of Tripoli targetted bases used by the Khamis brigade, one of the “better armed brigades” that is loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. She says these bases have been repeatedly targetted, and that this could be because they are said to have “underground facilities”.

Targeting underground airports is a legitimate aspect of the NFZ. BTW, we haven’t taken sides in this. haven’t picked winners and losers. Nosirree.

a capella on March 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Talk to the ATF about, they seem to be the experts:

Why did the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives stand by and watch as guns were transported across our southern border to Mexico, to be used by violent drug cartels?

NRO: The Scandal of ‘Gun-Walking’

Colbyjack on March 29, 2011 at 6:16 PM

The Marines are already packing their sandals for this mission. Which inmate is running this asylum, formally known as a regime, anyway?

Kissmygrits on March 29, 2011 at 6:33 PM

NRO: The Scandal of ‘Gun-Walking’

Colbyjack on March 29, 2011 at 6:16 PM

That’s a great summary. That project has the stink of Eric Holder all over it.

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Isn’t Hillary’s and Obama’s allies AlQ and company, arming the “rebels”. Shouldn’t Hillary and Obama be coordinating better with their allies?

Heckle on March 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Is there an Arabic word for “contra?”

Barnestormer on March 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

The Face of War- Brunhillary Clinton. At least we’re back to hearing from the REAL CinC today. Not that Beta-male dude who was on last night.

Hillary loves killing people doesn’t she? Of course she sees it as compassion. Twisted.

‘Killing to prevent humanitarian disasters is like fornicating for virginity.’

JimP on March 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Hillary got scolded for saying that Assad is cool.

Then she said “I was referencing others’ opinions; I was not speaking for myself nor for this administration”

…this, ladies and gentlemen, from the smartest man and woman on Earth, Barack and Hillary.

Watch your children.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Recall that Hillary called Assad “a reformer” just a few days ago.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2011 at 8:26 PM

The Right, Conservatives, a President, have been taken to the woodshed for the very idea that “we” somehow armed the Taliban, or armed and trained Osama, despite the fact that the Taliban didn’t come about until after the Soviet-Afghan War ended and none of “our” arms nor training went to the “foreign” mujihadeen during the war in Afghanistan. Pakis and Saudis may have done so, but “we” did not.

Now, today, we have a President, a Secretary of State, and a Secretary of Defense going to arm groups that have ties, connetions and loyalties with Al-Qaeda and the Ikhwan?

When did those groups become solid pro-American and liberty loving homies?

coldwarrior on March 29, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Arming Libyans is unacceptable.

JCred on March 29, 2011 at 9:59 PM

When did those groups become solid pro-American and liberty loving homies?

coldwarrior on March 29, 2011 at 9:21 PM

When Zero said so, pay attention! /s

Who is John Galt on March 29, 2011 at 10:03 PM

When Reagan gives arms it is an evil impeachable act, if Obama does it, he is a great man! LOL

jeffn21 on March 30, 2011 at 8:33 AM

NEVER GET BETWEEN PARTIES IN A CIVIL WAR. I thought that was the message we got after Vietnam. Clinton and Obama keep quoting the United Nations and not the Constitution. Libya did not come under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 only authorizes the President to commit troops under certain conditions and Libya did not fit any of them. No President since the 1973 passage have followed it, they all have used it but not the way it was supposed to.

old war horse on March 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Hmmm. Let’s call it Obama’s 2nd Amendment Project. He’s just seeing that both sides have arms…

Hopefully, when the dust settles, all the bad guys will be room temperature…

drfredc on March 31, 2011 at 12:19 AM