It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US To Reduce Role In Military Campaign

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The balance is shifting. It seems like Obama has been carrying the larger can and wants to the role to be more evenly shared to reduce the burden on the US.



President Barack Obama has said the US will transfer its leading role on Libya "within days" to ensure the burden of enforcing a UN resolution against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is shared. He said Nato would play a co-ordinating role but differences remain within the organisation, with France and Turkey opposed to Nato taking the lead.




"We will be one of the partners among many," Mr Obama said. "Obviously, the situation is evolving on the ground, and how quickly this transfer takes place will be determined by the recommendation of our commanding officers that the first phase of the mission has been completed," he said.

Mr Obama pointed to past events when the US had acted "unilaterally and without full international support" and had "ended up bearing the full burden".

He said Nato would play a co-ordinating function but he said he would leave it to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, to describe later how the transfer would take place.

In Russia, visiting US Defence Secretary Robert Gates also said the US would soon reduce its participation in the coalition operation. But after a meeting in Brussels, Nato appeared not to have resolved differences over how to proceed.


Full Article BBC News

Do you think the US is carrying the full burden?

Obama refers above,


Mr Obama pointed to past events when the US had acted "unilaterally and without full international support" and had "ended up bearing the full burden".


Is that fair comment?
edit on 21-3-2011 by studio500 because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
edit on 3/21/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Germany and Turkey are against the bombing raids taking place.

Anyway, this just makes me angry. What burden are they talking about? After three nights of bombings with Tomahawks and B-2s, now Obummer wants to get rid of the burden...
edit on 21-3-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
the missiles are about 2 million a piece and 123 is about 250 million dollars not to mention the cost of the fuel and man power the operation will cost i would say close to a billion dollars in 2-3 days



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
He should have thought about this before he signed onto the NFZ.

Obama got played.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
basically they need us to knock out the air defense so Qatar the French and Turkish army's can practice with there jets over Libya we let loose 123 missiles and the brits send 2 and one was on the Gaddhafi compound which has pissed off many country's cause it wasn't a target that should have been hit or the row of tanks they blew up. britts are a real big help in making us look bad



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
Germany and Turkey are against the bombing raids taking place.

Anyway, this just makes me angry. What burden are they talking about? After three nights of bombings with Tomahawks and B-2s, now Obummer wants to get rid of the burden...
edit on 21-3-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


He's talking about Iraq.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Obama is talking about Iraq? No, he is talking about Libya. The article makes that quite clear.

What I would like to know is why would NATO have anything to do with Libya?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Nephalim
 


Obama is talking about Iraq? No, he is talking about Libya. The article makes that quite clear.

What I would like to know is why would NATO have anything to do with Libya?


No, no, no sir, this qoute right here in the ops post.



Mr Obama pointed to past events when the US had acted "unilaterally and without full international support" and had "ended up bearing the full burden".


This qoute refers to the US baring most of the burden of iraqs invasion from 03 to current date. Obama speaks about it in relation to the issue happening in Lybia now, and explains that this is NOT going to happen this time around. He is right, this is matter for the UN, not the US, not Britain, not France, nor any country itself alone.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


My apologies, you are correct.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
That is if everything goes as planned .. we'll see in the coming days.. and even still.. the damage has already been done



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Let's be honest. Obama doesn't know WHAT to do. This isn't going to be solved with a "beer summit" or a speech. He has the right hating him for watching events unfold in the middle east like he was watching a tv program. He has the left hating him for taking action (much to my surprize).

So consensus is out the window. A leader would take decisive action. Obama just wants to vote "present" and go on another vacation.

Here's my take on it.
There has been speculation that the muslim brotherhood, and/or Al Qeada (sp?) is behind much of the protest in the middle east. So Obama drags his feet helping them, they lose many of their numbers throug bombings, shooting by the current governments, then he comes in and gets rid of the current governments.

So it looks like 1) He is doing something, 2) Getting rid of many of the protesters, but not too many, 3) Making Israel increasingly nervous, 4) Strengthening Iran who is behind much of the action in the middle east, 5) Providing leverage to south america (Venesuela) for their oil, 6) finally, delaying any sustained peace by pushing off any final solutions that could provide stabilization in the region.

*Note, these are just my opinions, hence, no links to substantiate.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


No problem at all, and no apologies needed


Anyway Im under the impression that the whole idea was to at the very least, level the playing field, if you guys recall from prior events in Lybia this month, the rebels pretty much had the guy cornered and because he had air support was able to beat them back. It appeared they had the situation in hand until then.

What surprised me ( and probably everyone else ) was the missile strikes, that one caught me off guard. Im sittin there like, oh f*** me, maybe we shouldn't be doing that. :/



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pez1975
 


Try closer to $1 million and these missiles are already bought and paid for, so hardly an "extra" cost on your defence budget. Same goes for the aircraft, fuel etc. In fact, I'd hazard a guess and say bombing campaign or not, a fair amount of of missiles and fuel are burned up every year in exercises.

Also, some Tomahawks are British, so you're not forking out for the whole lot. Then there are the Stormshadows and other weapon systems being deployed by a variety of platforms.

EDIT:

The US took command initially due to their being an existing HQ for the region already in place. Makes sense, really.

The main problem with the US transferring command is that while NATO countries are quite happy for NATO to assume command, the Arabs are not and some of the NATO countries are hesitant getting involved where there isn't a clearly defined command structure.
edit on 22/3/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Why are you saluting spending. Libya is going to cost US tax payers billions in the end. Why are we doing this is the question not if we can afford it. who benefits cui bono? Not the US tax payer for sure.


edit on 22-3-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


I wasn't saluting anything, just being a realist about the cost and not getting all worked up.

Like I said, these things were bought for months, if not years ago and in all likelihood would have either been exploded in Libya or exploded in Nevada on a range. Either way, they make you pay for it.




top topics



 
1

log in

join