NATO runs short on attack jets in Libya

posted at 2:15 pm on April 5, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

When the US announced on Friday that it would stop running sorties over Libya as part of a US command effort against Moammar Gaddafi’s forces, I predicted that NATO would be requesting American fighter jets under the new joint command by the weekend.  NATO on its own doesn’t have the resources to maintain the NFZ, and it would only be a matter of hours before the US was asked to fly those missions under the coalition’s aegis.  I was wrong — but only in regard to the timing (via James Joyner):

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.

David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.

“We will need more strike capability,” a Nato official said.

The American sorties ended on Sunday night.  It took 24 hours for NATO to realize that it couldn’t carry out the mission with the forces provided by the alliance. That’s only slightly longer than I had predicted it would take.

The US has not specifically been requested to return to the attack, but it’s inevitable.  NATO is pressing France and the UK to up their contributions.  France already has twice as many assets in the air theater than the UK (33 aircraft of all sorts compared to 17), but both numbers are low for the kind of regime-toppling effort that NATO clearly wants to conduct.  Furthermore, the change in tactics on the ground from Gaddafi’s forces to light transport and infantry makes for difficult targeting, especially if the aim is to avoid civilian casualties.

If our NATO partners start losing momentum in their air campaign, it will put the US in a tough position.  Would Barack Obama allow the NATO mission to fail from a lack of resources and have Gaddafi triumph over the West?  Or will he send Americans back into combat to keep the pressure on Gaddafi, even if that’s under NATO control?  And will he go to Congress to get authorization for that kind of combat commitment, especially when other NATO partners aren’t upping their own antes?


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

Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Old and busted: No fly zone
New and hotness: Okay, maybe today you can fly zone…

ted c on April 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Bring out the Sopwith Camels! Or, as Americans know it, the modern European air force.

amerpundit on April 5, 2011 at 2:18 PM

And this is the NATO designed to fight the Soviets?!

Tony737 on April 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM

McSame 2012

shanimal on April 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Deploy Moochelle on Scare Force One. She can drop Champagne bottles and lobster shells on ‘em.

viking01 on April 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Bring out the Sopwith Camels! Or, as Americans know it, the modern European air force.

amerpundit on April 5, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Haaaa. We needs music for that!!

ted c on April 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Tony737 on April 5, 2011 at 2:20 PM

That was twenty years ago. A generation of neglect on display…

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM

800 billion clams on a stimulus didn’t buy us a single additional zeppelin?????

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Look, you can say all sorts of things about Bush’s execution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least he knew what he wanted to do in those places.

Obama has no clue, and it is a disgrace and a dishonor to our armed forces.

President Obama. *spit*

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Because the Brits are going to want to tie up additional military resources in Libya now that the Argentines are making waves over the Falklands again.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM

How do you know that what he is doing isn’t actually what he wants to do?

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM

NATO is a neutered dog . . . get out of it now and it will save us a great deal of money.

rplat on April 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

What a clusterfark.

madne0 on April 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

“Help us Obama-wan-Kenobee, you are our ONLY hope.”

portlandon on April 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Unexpected.
Idiots !!!!

pambi on April 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Because the Brits are going to want to tie up additional military resources in Libya now that the Argentines are making waves over the Falklands again.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

speaking of anachronistic news models and their respective anchor people (see CBS thread), the Falklands War was probably one of the last memories I have of watching network news….either that or the invasion of Grenada.

ted c on April 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM

How can an entity that is materially unable to perform a mission be relied on to LEAD it? I think this will come back to bite us all in the ass, and by ass, I mean the symbol for the democrat party.

Mord on April 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM

“Help us Obama-wan-Kenobee, you are our ONLY hope.”

portlandon on April 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

WINNING post !!

pambi on April 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I love it when a well thought out plan comes together. Samantha Powers for Sec of Def!

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 2:29 PM

the change in tactics on the ground from Gaddafi’s forces to light transport and infantry makes for difficult targeting,

But would make them vulnerable to populace armed with handguns and hunting rifles. To bad the Libyan people don’t have any.
Seriously, how much does the cheapest handgun cost? Could we ship a million of them to Libya for less than what the air-strikes cost?

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 2:29 PM

The French and some other shadowy UN military force are stretched in bombing Christians on behalf of the Muslim freedom fighters in the Ivory Coast.

BL@KBIRD on April 5, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Will Teh Won make the worst possible decision with the worst possible timing? This is a rhetorical question.

Maybe he can sneak another Senate authorization through by calling the hotline bill The Defense Of Puppy Freedom Affordability Act or some such.

GnuBreed on April 5, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Because the Brits are going to want to tie up additional military resources in Libya now that the Argentines are making waves over the Falklands again.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Really sucks to have sacrificed one’s military capabilities to feed the socialist dream, doesn’t it? Oh, and kudos to the Argentinians for recognizing an opportunity and taking advantage of it. International love is what it’s all about.

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 2:33 PM

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Have you heard him speak on the subject? Have you seen what we are doing?

There may be non-Libya related goals for Othuga, but if he actually wants to help “civilians” or go for regime change or whatever the justification du jour is, going about it this way is asinine.

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM

A lot of tough decisions here, sounds like time for another round or two of golf.

rbj on April 5, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Why do they call French fighter planes a Mirage?

Because they disappear in the desert?

Furthermore, the change in tactics on the ground from Gaddafi’s forces to light transport and infantry makes for difficult targeting, especially if the aim is to avoid civilian casualties.

Brit pilot: Can’t read the writing on that lorry down yonder, I bloody ‘ope it belongs to Gadhafi if I blow it to bits!

Steve Z on April 5, 2011 at 2:37 PM

“Coalition of the ailing”

G M on April 5, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Why are French fighter jets called Mirage?

Because they disappear in the desert…

Steve Z on April 5, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Seriously, how much does the cheapest handgun cost? Could we ship a million of them to Libya for less than what the air-strikes cost?

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 2:29 PM

The ATF is busy shipping them to Mexico. So we can have a failed state right on our border.

rbj on April 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM

so what does this say about their ability to defend Europe?

Kaptain Amerika on April 5, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Chuck Schick “800 billion clams on a stimulus didn’t buy us a single additional zeppelin?????”

In D.C., the Song Remains the Same.

OBQuiet on April 5, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Latest news is that Obama is calling for America’s large corporations to help foot the bill; apparently both MetLife and Goodyear will be sending assets to the region.

BKeyser on April 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Just in time for another big-time overhyped ex-anchor to muse “No other President had it this hard”……

Sir Napsalot on April 5, 2011 at 2:46 PM

One Word:

FIASCO

And, if I could’ve changed the font color to red, I would’ve.

franksalterego on April 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM

The ATF is busy shipping them to Mexico. So we can have a failed state right on our border.

rbj on April 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Not so sure it is a failed country. More like owned lock, stock and Calderon by one cartel, with Mexico’s law enforcement and military playing enforcer against the other cartels, with perhaps, our DEA and ATF along for the ride.

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/robert-farago/calderons-silence-on-atf-gunwalker-scandal-explained/

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM

..Help us, Obama..

Deploy Moochelle..

viking01 on April 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM

“Coalition of the ailing”

G M on April 5, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Why are French fighter jets called Mirage?

Because they disappear in the desert…

Steve Z on April 5, 2011 at 2:38 PM

…so many winning posts, so little time..

The War Planner on April 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM

NATO is a neutered dog . . . get out of it now and it will save us a great deal of money.

rplat on April 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Ditto for the U.N.

SouthernGent on April 5, 2011 at 2:49 PM

It would be an excellent opportunity to introduce an new UN fairness and cultural sensitivity combat doctrine for Muslim unpleasantness, it could even have an Eco-green component (bitches love Eco-green components).

Arm both sides with machetes and bean bag shotguns only. Muslims prefer to open flesh with edged weapons (it’s a Muslim thing, you wouldn’t understand)but they also like the big bang noise from exploding gun powder. The bean bag shotguns ammo have real beans in the bags, yellow eyed, navy, kidney, soldier beans or whatever beans are halal in the neighborhood. They stun their opponents with the bean bags and then move in to do with blades whatever it is Muslims like to do with blades. The Eco-green component will be the bumper harvest of bean crops to feed and sustain the survivors.

Then you make deals and amends to the last bean farmers standing.

BL@KBIRD on April 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM

AsI said, how do you know this isn’t exactly how he wants things going?

I’m being only slightly facetious when I write that.

There are two possibilities as I see them:

1) Obama really believes he is doing the right thing the right way. If this is the case he is supremely stupid, naive, etc. for not having thought this out.

2) Obama knows this is the wrong way to go about doing this kind of thing and doesn’t care.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:50 PM

When THE turd sandwich hit Europe, what then?

Sir Napsalot on April 5, 2011 at 2:51 PM

800 billion clams on a stimulus didn’t buy us a single additional zeppelin?????
Chuck Schick on April 5, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Yes they are protecting the borders!

Of the 51st thru 57th states!

DSchoen on April 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM

rbj on April 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM
a capella on April 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM

So, what’s the status of legal gun ownership in Mexico? Do only the criminals have them?

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

“They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport,” while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said…
 
Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th

 
Seriously, how are Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, etc. getting away with the continued use of the “no fly zone” term?
 
We’re strafing and bombing troops and artillery, dangit. Unless my tiny knowledge of military matters has spectacularly failed me, neither is capable of flight.
 
Use this as more proof for anyone who believes the media isn’t biased.

rogerb on April 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

It took 24 hours for NATO to realize that it couldn’t carry out the mission with the forces provided by the alliance. That’s only slightly longer than I had predicted it would take.

Don’t be so hard on yourself, Ed. They probably realized their shortage about 15 minutes after taking command, but tried to save face, and 24 hours was all they could bluff.

dcman98 on April 5, 2011 at 2:57 PM

This rag-tag bunch of misfits alliance was supposed to defend Western Europe from the Soviets? What a joke.

livefreerdie on April 5, 2011 at 2:58 PM

rogerb on April 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Perhaps the Libyans have developed and perfected anti-gravity technology for their Nissan gun platforms?

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 3:00 PM

l

ivefreerdie on April 5, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Let’s be honest, if the Soviets had gone full bore into Europe the only thing which would have stopped them would have been nukes.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Because the Brits are going to want to tie up additional military resources in Libya now that the Argentines are making waves over the Falklands again.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Ironically, the Argentine’s financial situation is horrible too. I don’t know even if they spent money on their military.

I’m trying to find the info.

Oil Can on April 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Why doesn’t NATO just ask the UN to kick in some attack aircraft?

HAHAHA… sometimes I just crack myself up!

drunyan8315 on April 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM

So, what’s the status of legal gun ownership in Mexico? Do only the criminals have them?

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

IIRC, citizens can own handguns, but only of light caliber. Seems like anything above .380 is restricted to LE and military use. Of course, that means ammo for a decent caliber would also be unavailable.

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 3:06 PM

And I’m not trying to be funny here. But how much resources does it take to bomb a Toyota?

Really, this war reminds me of when I went paintballing at 16. The rebels are just as organized as I was.

Oil Can on April 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Seriously, how are Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, etc. getting away with the continued use of the “no fly zone” term?

We’re strafing and bombing troops and artillery, dangit. Unless my tiny knowledge of military matters has spectacularly failed me, neither is capable of flight.

Use this as more proof for anyone who believes the media isn’t biased.

rogerb on April 5, 2011 at 2:55 PM

It isn’t the media. It is the wording of the U.N. and NATO agreements. They made them very vague so they can be interpeted to mean whatever is wanted. This is all about oil and they need Daffy gone,..hence, acting as the rebel’s air force.

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM

IIRC, citizens can own handguns, but only of light caliber. Seems like anything above .380 is restricted to LE and military use. Of course, that means ammo for a decent caliber would also be unavailable.

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 3:06 PM

The caliber isn’t so much an issue as how many guns there are. If the majority of the guns are held by a minority that are either military or criminal, the public is kind of helpless.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 3:11 PM

And I’m not trying to be funny here. But how much resources does it take to bomb a Toyota?

Really, this war reminds me of when I went paintballing at 16. The rebels are just as organized as I was.

Oil Can on April 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM

According to Mythbusters, most small arms go right through the side panels of even the old heavy cars. The trick is being sure of your target.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 3:13 PM

If the majority of the guns are held by a minority that are either military or criminal, the public is kind of helpless.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Oh, sure. That’s a given down there. I read a good article the other day documenting how shipments of military long guns, purchased here, intended for, and shipped to law enforcement or the military, get sidetracked and disappeared to the cartels. The article had documentation including serial numbers. The whole system is rotten.

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM

ted c on April 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM

The European Air Force? There is music for that, and a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lXqMmevog

TulsAmerican on April 5, 2011 at 3:30 PM

either that or the invasion of Grenada.

ted c on April 5, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Whenever i hear Grenada, I think back to those days of having the bumpersticker on my truck “Grenada. Media Defeat”

What a hoot, even back then in the DFW area, there were a few libtards that would get a hissy fit when they saw that.

AH_C on April 5, 2011 at 3:32 PM

…and soon Lybia: Al-Qaeda Quickly Fills Void as Obama Administration Pushes Yemeni President From Power

This Jackass will leave us one h of a mess, even worse than the idiot Carter did.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2011 at 3:37 PM

The complete military history of France: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

TulsAmerican on April 5, 2011 at 3:39 PM

The European Air Force? There is music for that, and a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lXqMmevog

TulsAmerican on April 5, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Too funny

AH_C on April 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM

If NATO can’t handle a blue bird op like Libya….

Alden Pyle on April 5, 2011 at 3:59 PM

American forces will be back.

Not so much their Commander in Chief.

He’s already exited.

PRESENT!

GarandFan on April 5, 2011 at 4:01 PM

NATO runs short on attack jets in Libya

Seems NATO has the same problems with attack jets as America has with government credit.

rukiddingme on April 5, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Sortie rates are the problem.

The problem is that British Typhoons are flying out of Gioia del Colle which is almost 600 miles distant from Libya. The Tornado’s are flying from Marham airbase in England, 3,000 mile and an 8 mission!

The French are flying out of distant French airbases, and off their carrier which is probably why they are flying far more missions than the British.

Others are flying out of Sardinia (Spain and the UAE) as well as bases in Sicily (Canada, Denmark and the US).

The closest are the French flying from their carrier and the USMC Harriers from the USS Kearsarge.

The bases are simply too far away to be able to respond in a reasonable time and the distance substantially cuts down on the sorties (missions) that can be flown in a 24 hour period.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 4:19 PM

You have to understand the armed forces of France, Germany and the UK are there for one reason and one reson only. They are nothing more than a showcase for each country’s arms industry. They can no more fight a dinky fight like Libya than the man in the moon.

The Brits can’t sustain more than 8 fighters??? They think they might come up with 4 more? Sad but true.

I’ll give Obama credit. He has shown the utter impotence of the European NATO forces. And the Russians are probably watching.

Take heed Europe, you may have to defend yourself.

Corky Boyd on April 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM

How exactly are they our partners if they bring nothing to the potluck?

ronsfi on April 5, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Another thought.

Both France and the UK are probably getting squeamish, worried that Gaddafi will stay in power. He is not likely to think kindly of them (or us) for trying to terminate him.

France is now more worried about saving its oil company TOTAL than protectiong a bunch of ragtag rebels. Ditto for the Brits with BP that it has already sold its soul for.

You will see waning support from these Euroweenies.

Corky Boyd on April 5, 2011 at 4:39 PM

We’ve gone from NFZ to NFW.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 4:42 PM

The stupid part is that 24 armed jet trainers (Hawk 200′s) would do a better job of flying air support based in Benghazi than what they are currently doing. That would be too decisive and would be choosing sides (Land of Goshen!).

So they play this idiotic game that they are neutral kinetic bombers, fooling no one but themselves.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM

What happened to the Arab league?

Quick research shows:

Egypt: over 200 F-16s.
Jordan: around 40 F-16s.
Morocco: 40 Mirages.
Saudi Arabia: 150 F-15s, 85 Tornados.
Syria: 56 Mig-29s, 167 Mig-23s, 159 Mig-21s

Why do the British need to scrap up FOUR more combat aircraft, when the Arab league can blot out the sky with all their aircraft?

This doesn’t pass the smell test.

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM

So they play this idiotic game that they are neutral kinetic bombers, fooling no one but themselves.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Ah, true. For some reason when Democrats initiate bombing missions nobody gets hurt, we just destroy enemy equipment. But when Republicans do it, they’re murdering babies.

But, then, any wise military commander is going to ask for more resources from his government and his allies. It’s just part of the process.

Lawrence on April 5, 2011 at 4:57 PM

What happened to the Arab league?

Egypt: over 200 F-16s.
Jordan: around 40 F-16s.
Morocco: 40 Mirages.
Saudi Arabia: 150 F-15s, 85 Tornados.
Syria: 56 Mig-29s, 167 Mig-23s, 159 Mig-21s

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM

You are assuming they all work. Having 200 jets, and being able to effectively deploy those jets over a prolonged period of time, are two different things in military context.

Lawrence on April 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Lawrence on April 5, 2011 at 4:59 PM

I’m well aware that Arabs are awful at maintenance, but you cannot possibly be telling me that the entire Arab league cannot detail and keep flying a dozen or so aircraft?

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM

But, then, any wise military commander is going to ask for more resources from his government and his allies. It’s just part of the process.

Lawrence on April 5, 2011 at 4:57 PM

The problem is that there are going to be consequences to screwing the pooch on this one. If the entirety of NATO, including the United States cannot bring some third world dictator to heel, then other more dangerous folks will start lining up to try their chances against the ‘paper tiger’.

Even if they are wrong, and at this point I am not sure they are, it will still mean a conflict that could have been avoided.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 5:04 PM

I’m well aware that Arabs are awful at maintenance, but you cannot possibly be telling me that the entire Arab league cannot detail and keep flying a dozen or so aircraft?

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM

The United Arab Emirates have 24 24 Mirage 2000′s and F-16 on Sardinia, but I am not sure they are even flying missions. Qatar has 4 Mirage 2000′s as well which may have been deployed to provide cover with a Muslim Seal Of Approval. The pilots are probably out at the local night clubs while their planes gather dust.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM

The US has not specifically been requested to return to the attack, but it’s inevitable.

I think you mean the US has not been specifically volunteered

redfoxbluestate on April 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I’m well aware that Arabs are awful at maintenance, but you cannot possibly be telling me that the entire Arab league cannot detail and keep flying a dozen or so aircraft?

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Arab League planes are only for attacking The Juice. They don’t work on other Arabs.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Excellent coverage all. Only one missing comment. This is The War of Obama’s ‘Succession’.

I am optimistic ’12 will be led as “expertly” by D’rats.

Caststeel on April 5, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Can we just declare victory and run away now?

MJBrutus on April 5, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Chuck Schick “800 billion clams on a stimulus didn’t buy us a single additional zeppelin?????”
In D.C., the Song Remains the Same.

OBQuiet on April 5, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Nice…

M-14 2go on April 5, 2011 at 7:36 PM

And in 1979, when the first Big Islamic crisis struck and caused gas lines and rationing in America, we could have begun a Manhattan Project for Energy Independence.

But didn’t.

And every year, and every Administration since, we didn’t.

And now Obama doesn’t.

The majority of Americans have voted for this paralysis and extortion all along, culminating in the brainless Boy King, and, unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer their shortsighted, suicidal stupidity.

Oil prices are a barometer of the idiocy of the majority.

profitsbeard on April 5, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Thank goodness Q-daffy is the only serious threat right now faced by NATO. Otherwise, we might be in big trouble.

AshleyTKing on April 5, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Because the Brits are going to want to tie up additional military resources in Libya now that the Argentines are making waves over the Falklands again.

catmman on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Sorry, but the UK can’t do a thing about the Falklands any more. As part of the most recent round of defence cuts we got rid of our aircraft carrier- and the replacement won’t be aircraft-ready until 2019. According to our genius government we can no longer conduct overseas missions without help. So if Argentina invades the Falklands that would be…um, well, no one.

Also, the RAF has been told to prepare for a six month deployment over Libya- after which time the chief of the RAF says his force will be exhausted.

Good old David Cameron- gutting the UK’s military before sending it into another war.

Jay Mac on April 5, 2011 at 9:23 PM

SHUT IT DOWN!!

mechkiller_k on April 5, 2011 at 9:55 PM

“Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.”

Rebar on April 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM”

You mean:

“Obama is an Orphan.”

amend2 on April 5, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Getting outgunned and outsmarted by Moammar freakin’ Ghadafi.

This is what happens when you let countries who haven’t fought a war in 60 years, whose very populations assume the fetal position at the mere thought of military conflict, assume control of a mission.

NATO is worthless. If you want regime change, call the United States and have us steamroll that punk in the same manner we did Saddam. Not 72 hours would pass before a full US invasion would smoke that joker out of a hole and send him off to the ICC.

If you don’t want regime change, give up now and stop wasting our time and money.

BKennedy on April 6, 2011 at 1:46 AM

Face it folks, it’s going to come down to the United States doing the world’s dirty work and Obama doesn’t have the nerve to get it done right. So in the long run, unless something dramatic occurs, it’s beginning to look like Daffy Kadaffi/Quadafi/Qaddafi/whatever may win this thing.

Carl on April 6, 2011 at 9:27 AM