PDA

View Full Version : US General admits ground troops in Libya possible




Anti Federalist
04-07-2011, 07:00 PM
But, get this, it's important for NATO to fully take over because our troops are needed for...IRAN!!!

What the flying fuck???!!! :mad::mad::mad:


General: US may consider sending troops into Libya

NBC News and news services
updated 1 hour 16 minutes ago 2011-04-07T23:09:36

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

AJDABIYAH, Libya — The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday, describing the ongoing operation as a stalemate that is more likely to go on now that America has handed control to NATO.

But Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers that American participation in a ground force would not be ideal, since it could erode the international coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

He said NATO has done an effective job in an increasingly complex combat situation. But he noted that, in a new tactic, Gadhafi's forces are making airstrikes more difficult by staging their fighters and vehicles near civilian areas such as schools and mosques.

The use of an international ground force is a possible plan to bolster the Libyan rebels, Ham said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Asked whether the U.S. would provide troops, Ham said, "I suspect there might be some consideration of that. My personal view at this point would be that that's probably not the ideal circumstance, again for the regional reaction that having American boots on the ground would entail."

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country.

Pressed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the situation in Libya, Ham agreed that a stalemate "is now more likely" since NATO took command.

Ham also disclosed that the U.S. is providing some strike aircraft to the NATO operation that do not need to go through the special approval process recently established. The powerful side-firing AC-130 gunship is available to NATO commanders, he said.

His answer countered earlier claims by the Pentagon that all strike aircraft must be requested through U.S. European Command and approved by top U.S. leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Ham said that process still applies to other fighters and the A-10 Thunderbolt, which can provide close air support for ground forces, He said that process is quick, and other defense officials have said it can take about a day for the U.S. to approve the request and move the aircraft in from bases in Europe.

Overall, he said the U.S. is providing less than 15 percent of the airstrikes and between 60 percent and 70 percent of the support effort, which includes intelligence gathering, surveillance, electronic warfare and refueling.

Recent bad weather and threats from Gadhafi's mobile surface-to-air missile systems have hampered efforts to use the AC-130 and A-10 aircraft for close air support for friendly ground forces. Ham said those conditions, which include as many as 20,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, contributed to the stalemate.

Ham said he believes some Arab nations are starting to provide training or weapons to the rebels. And he repeated assertions that the U.S. needs to know more about the opposition forces before it would get more deeply involved in assisting them.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, complained that the lack of knowledge about the rebels is a U.S. intelligence failure.

"It strikes me as unusual and maybe something that Congress needs to look at further, that our intelligence capabilities are so limited that we don't even know the composition of the opposition force in Libya, " Cornyn said.

Ham said it was important for the U.S. to turn control over to NATO because many of the troops involved in the Libya strikes are preparing to go to Iran or Afghanistan or have just recently returned from the warfront.

TheNcredibleEgg
04-07-2011, 07:03 PM
Had to be a typo : Iraq

Anti Federalist
04-07-2011, 07:04 PM
Had to be a typo : Iraq

I was thinking the same thing...or a Freudian slip???

TheNcredibleEgg
04-07-2011, 07:08 PM
I was thinking the same thing...or a Freudian slip???

Well, yeah, that's a small possibility too.

nate895
04-07-2011, 07:08 PM
Had to be a typo : Iraq

Hard to believe. Those two are far away on a keyboard. Slip of the mind more likely. BTW, everyone needs to be weary of war with Iran. Iran actually has a decent military force that is very well trained compared to other Middle Eastern countries. Part of that is they have lots of our military equipment. They also have their own defense industry and pretty much every resource necessary to make war. The terrain also favors the defender. If we go to war with Iran I'd advise everyone who can to marry and have children.

Anti Federalist
04-07-2011, 07:09 PM
Well, yeah, that's a small possibility too.

If it is a typo or misquote I imagine it will be corrected rather quickly, given the topic matter.

We shall see.

roho76
04-07-2011, 07:23 PM
Hard to believe. Those two are far away on a keyboard. Slip of the mind more likely. BTW, everyone needs to be weary of war with Iran. Iran actually has a decent military force that is very well trained compared to other Middle Eastern countries. Part of that is they have lots of our military equipment. They also have their own defense industry and pretty much every resource necessary to make war. The terrain also favors the defender. If we go to war with Iran I'd advise everyone who can to marry and have children.

Why?

nate895
04-07-2011, 07:32 PM
Why?

They draft you last.

acptulsa
04-07-2011, 07:40 PM
We don't want boots on the ground because we'll piss the whole region off but Europe can't break the stalemate. Did I read that right?

I'd rather have some faith in those fools in Europe than start WWIII, thank you.

nate895
04-07-2011, 07:42 PM
We don't want boots on the ground because we'll piss the whole region off but Europe can't break the stalemate. Did I read that right?

I'd rather have some faith in those fools in Europe than start WWIII, thank you.

The French Foreign Legion should be able to do this job. Desert warfare in places like Libya has been their specialty for over a century. I didn't get why the Frenchies didn't send them in to start out with if they were so concerned.

Theocrat
04-07-2011, 09:11 PM
What's even more startling is the rebel fighters our ground troops will help support in Libya are being funded by Al-Qaeda (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html). But didn't we go to war with Iraq because of Al-Qaeda? :confused:

torchbearer
04-07-2011, 09:16 PM
we already have ground troops in libya.
in fact, the next world world will be in africa and the middle east as the men in d.c. play god.
the whole capitol is built as mount olympus for a reason.

ivory coast to northern africa, to the persian gulf... war will take root. a side effect of our support of dictators and war-like foreign intervention in that area.
the cure, the talking heads will proclaim, is more intervention over there...
i suspect more terrorist type attacks in our future.

James Madison
04-07-2011, 09:17 PM
What's even more startling is the rebel fighters our ground troops will help support in Libya are being funded by Al-Qaeda (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html). But didn't we go to war with Iraq because of Al-Qaeda? :confused:

We've always been at war with EastAsia....we've never been at war with EastAsia.

torchbearer
04-07-2011, 09:20 PM
We've always been at war with EastAsia....we've never been at war with EastAsia.

eastasia has always been at war with eurasia

acptulsa
04-07-2011, 09:22 PM
Nice to see you, torch.

Come on, you know those Agency guys don't count. The few, the anonymous, the muckrakers. They're everywhere they're not supposed to be.

Aratus
04-07-2011, 09:24 PM
its an ominous typo

torchbearer
04-07-2011, 09:26 PM
Nice to see you, torch.

Come on, you know those Agency guys don't count. The few, the anonymous, the muckrakers. They're everywhere they're not supposed to be.

i may take the time later to detail my adventures away from the net... but i assure you, those trials and tribulations have only hardened my resolve for either liberty or death.
just waiting for ron to say when.

tangent4ronpaul
04-08-2011, 12:21 AM
Hard to believe. Those two are far away on a keyboard. Slip of the mind more likely. BTW, everyone needs to be weary of war with Iran. Iran actually has a decent military force that is very well trained compared to other Middle Eastern countries. Part of that is they have lots of our military equipment. They also have their own defense industry and pretty much every resource necessary to make war. The terrain also favors the defender. If we go to war with Iran I'd advise everyone who can to marry and have children.

garbles (typos) are keys close to each other or transposed keys. That was a slip.

What Iran doesn't have is adequate refinery capability. They export oil and import gasoline.

tangent4ronpaul
04-08-2011, 12:44 AM
Nice to see you, torch.

Come on, you know those Agency guys don't count. The few, the anonymous, the muckrakers. They're everywhere they're not supposed to be.

muck·rake (mkrk)
intr.v. muck·raked, muck·rak·ing, muck·rakes
To search for and expose misconduct in public life.

Basically an investigative journalist

I think you might be referring to "knuckle dragger" : an unintelligent person. One resembling a lower primate or un-evolved human. You know, big muscled, not very bright, type A personality, thug that does dirty work. Sometimes found in paramilitary units as they do what they are told.

The military connotation seems to have fallen out of popularity as to definitions