U.S. pilots are doing exactly what the Obama administration promised they wouldn't be doing after NATO took command of the Libya war: bombing Libya.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, never an enthusiast for this third simultaneous U.S. conflict, pledged to Congress that America's combat commitment to Libya stopped when NATO came to lead what's now called Operation Unified Protector. Pressure from senators led him to qualify that U.S. warplanes would be on "standby" if NATO pilots felt overwhelmed. They've apparently felt overwhelmed.
Pentagon officials confirm to NBC News that U.S. pilots have attacked Libyan air defenses three times in the past week. They've not hit Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces, the ones that continue to attack rebel positions and Libyan civilians. And the Pentagon swears it's kept its pledge to remain in a "supporting" role for NATO by pointing to that distinction.
"We do not characterize those as 'strikes,' because [air defense suppression] is considered a defensive, vice offensive, mission," said Col. David Lapan, a Defense Department spokesman.
You decide if that's a distinction without a difference. The mantra from the Obama administration was that the U.S. contribution to the hot end of the war in Libya would last for "days, not weeks." According to Lapan, six F-16s, supported by five of the Navy's EA-18 Growler jamming jets, have flown 97 sorties to suppress Gadhafi's air defenses since NATO fully took charge of the war without U.S. gunships on April 4.
Danger Room has spent days pressing the Pentagon to specify how much the war has cost the U.S. since NATO took command. That's because the anticipated numbers from Gates seem way optimistic. Already the Pentagon has revised up its estimates for how much the "combat" phase of what used to be called Operation Odyssey Dawn cost. We've not yet been successful at getting a budgetary answer, but we'll post it when we do.
But all this raises questions about the difficulty the U.S. has in extricating itself from Libya once it decided to bomb Gadhafi but not remove him. Team Obama has pitched NATO's lead role as an example of how the U.S. can contribute to an international military action without assuming the burdens of leadership. But it's never been able to explain how to actually accomplish its goals in Libya absent some lucky break. If the U.S. is still bombing Libyan air defenses, how long can it really go in a stalemated war before being compelled to attack loyalist ground units again?
One more thing. President Obama gave a big deficit reduction speech on Wednesday. He didn't say much about cutting defense: an aspiration to cut $400 billion by 2023, which is pretty much meaningless in a world of half-trillion annual defense budgets and wars that cost an additional $150-plus billion. But Obama did say that he'd be guided by a forthcoming "fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world" -- an implicit answer to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' warning about "math, not strategy" shaping defense cuts.
OK, fine. If that's "strategy," then the president has to contend with the fact that he keeps expanding America's missions while pledging to cut defense. You can do one or the other -- that is, if you intend to act responsibly.
Photo: Flickr/U.S. Africa Command
See Also:
