« | »

Obama Okays Predator Attacks In Libya

From the ‘give war a chance’ crowd at the Associated Press:

Obama OKs use of armed drone aircraft in Libya

By Lolita C. Baldor And Robert Burns, Associated Press Thu Apr 21, 2011

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama has approved the use of armed drones in Libya, authorizing U.S. airstrikes on ground forces for the first time since America turned over control of the operation to NATO on April 4.

Lest we forget, Mr. Obama told us that America’s involvement in Libya would be a matter of "days, not weeks." But like so many of Mr. Obama’s promises, these were "just words."

It also is the first time that drones will be used for airstrikes since the conflict began on March 19, although they have routinely been flying surveillance missions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Thursday.

He said the U.S. will provide up to two 24-hour combat air patrols each day by the unmanned Predators.

Doesn’t our watchdog media claim that predator drones kill innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq practically every day. Wasn’t our original mission in Libya to protect innocent civilians?

Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the drones can help counteract the pro-Gadhafi forces’ tactic of traveling in civilian vehicles that make it difficult to distinguish them from rebel forces…

If these drones have supernatural powers to distinguish civilians from combatants, why all the claims about them killing civilians everywhere else?

Gates rejected the notion that the approval of drone strikes means that the U.S. will slowly get pulled back into a more active combat role, despite Obama’s promise to merely provide support for NATO…

Once upon a time he probably would have rejected the notion that we would ever provide drones.

"I think this is a very limited additional role on our part, but it does provide some additional capabilities to NATO," said Gates. "And if we can make a modest contribution with these armed Predators, we’ll do it. … I don’t think any of us sees that as mission creep."

Who does he mean by "us"? We see it as "mission creep." We were told that the US was done with any further combat role.

Gates, who publicly expressed skepticism about getting involved militarily in Libya before Obama endorsed the limited intervention, said "the real work" of overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi will have to be done by the Libyans themselves

Speaking of "mission creep." Remember, we were told this was not about regime change. We were only in Libya to prevent a humanitarian crisis.

Gates said the administration’s decision to provide $25 million in nonlethal military assistance to the rebels did not signal a deeper U.S. commitment to anti-Gadhafi forces whose makeup, objectives and motives are still not fully understood in Washington.

Of course not. We give $25 million dollars to anybody who asks us.

The aid, he said, is not high-end military equipment but rather a hodge-podge of things like uniforms and canteens. "I’m not worried about our canteen technology falling into the wrong hands," he joked.

Because you can’t buy weapons with US green backs. Only canteens.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, April 22nd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Obama Okays Predator Attacks In Libya”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Any word from congress?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

  2. canary says:

    #%!@#! Gates: ” I don’t think any of us sees that as mission creep.”

    From wikipedia: “Mission Creep” definition

    Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. The term often implies a certain disapproval of newly adopted goals by the user of the term. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.
    The first two articles to use the term in the Washington Post were both by columnist Jim Hoagland (“Prepared for Non-Combat”, April 15, 1993 and Beware ‘mission creep’ In Somalia, July 20, 1993).
    The New York Times used the term for the first time in an article by correspondent John H. Cushman, Jr. written after the October 4, 1993 firefight in the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu,
    in which 18 American military personnel were killed.

    … It appeared as early as March 7, 2011, when a Reuters article wrote that Britain’s vision of a no-fly zone over the country would be “likely to experience “mission creep” and move closer to U.S. thinking on the need to target (Libyan leader) Gaddafi’s defenses”.

    *(Gates is a yes boy to Celebrity Obama)*

    On March 31, 2011, with the campaign in its second week, U.S. Defense Secretary

    Robert Gates told a Senate hearing that “I am preoccupied with avoiding mission creep and avoiding having an open-ended, very large-scale American commitment in this respect”.
    —————————————————————————————————————— !!!!

    A joint article written by the leaders of the United Kingdom, United States and France that appeared on April 14, 2011 stated that Gaddafi “must go, and for good”. Some British MPs warned that this statement represented mission creep,———————————————————————————-

    as it exceeded the parameters of UN Resolution 1973,
    which stressed humanitarian objectives and did not include regime change as a stated goal
    Non-military examples

    Another example of a non-military use of the term mission creep is in connection with “fusion centers.” Fusion centers have been created as a counter-terrorism measure in the wake of 9/11 via the Department of Homeland Security. Essentially, fusion centers involve the collaboration and sharing of information…… A criticism of fusion centers is mission creep in which information being shared begins to include crimes other than terrorism that increases the risk that —————————————————
    —————————————————-fusion centers may violate the civil rights of American citizens.[9]


    From the very beginning, we’ve heard of Libya “civilians” being used as “human shields”

    If Bush had done this, he’d have been impeached and charged of war crimes. Where’s the NYTs now?

  3. Crapgame13 says:

    so air raiding villages and killing civilians is now part of the gig….

    Way to go Barry

    • Mithrandir says:

      Ah that Nobel PEACE Prize is shinning brighter than ever! –truly no one has deserved it more.

  4. GetBackJack says:

    Every empire has been destroyed by blowback. And when ours comes round, it will be epic. I daresay, Biblical.

  5. canary says:

    And now Obama says Syria’s regime’s “outrageous” use of violence against the protesters must “end now.”

    Obama said Gaddafi “must leave now” and everyone is targeted but the Gaddafi.

    Now, in Syria the regime is being forced to fight the protesters or they are mowed down. And I just don’t think they’ll target the pres that won’t step down.

    We should have gotten Saddam Hussein back when we could.

    There seems to be a game of chess where the little people are all destroyed instead of piece with the crown. How easy it is to just pick it off the board.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »