Obama, NATO, United Nations, Libya --Who's on First?

I wonder if the anyone in the White House can tell us what's going on? I know one thing, they don't want to call it a war.

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end."

Government officials sound like Beaky Buzzard, "Nope, Nope, it's not a war Nope..."

U.S. officials avoid describing the operation as a war. White house press secretary Jay Carney said it was "a time-limited, scope-limited military action."

Somewhere someone came up with the term "kinetic military action", followed by "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." Are you kidding me? The Obama White House is coming up with it's own form of political Pig Latin. We can't say "War on Terror" we have to say "Overseas Contingency Operation". Now we can't even say war at all, it's not a war it's a "kinetic military action" or a "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." We have a war being directed by individuals who are too scared to call it a war. This does not sit well with me.

The official response to the question of whether or not the action in Libya is a war begins with "I think what we are doing is..." One of the stated goals is protecting the Libyan people. Which Libyan people and protect them from what? This is absurd. We are going to kill the Libyans who are attacking the other Libyans; all of this is done to protect Libyans and avert a humanitarian crisis... Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes is not sure what we are doing! It sounds like we're intervening in a civil war, but we can't use the word war.

The confusion surrounding military intervention in Libya is amazing.

The US government, wary of getting stuck in another war in a Muslim country, would like to hand control of the mission over to NATO, but the alliance is divided. At a meeting on Monday, NATO ambassadors failed to agree on whether the alliance should take control of the mission. NATO involvement would require approval by all 28 members.

France has opposed handing control to NATO because of Arab skepticism about the alliance, which is perceived as being dominated by the US. Paris would prefer the current coalition of France, Britain and the US to keep political control of the mission, with operational support from NATO, according to sources quoted by Reuters. Turkey, an alliance member which sees itself as a bridge to the Muslim world, is opposing NATO control of the operation. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the United Nations should be in charge of an entirely humanitarian operation in Libya.

Britain and Italy want the alliance to be in charge of the operation, however. Rome has threatened to restrict access to its air bases, which are crucial to the mission, if NATO does not take over control. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Britain or France could also take control of the mission, but some NATO officials doubt if either country could handle the operation by itself, according to Reuters.

That's not what Obama told the American people last Sunday 03/19/11.

I’m also proud that we are acting as part of a coalition that includes close allies and partners who are prepared to meet their responsibility to protect the people of Libya and uphold the mandate of the international community.

I’ve acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

I don't really know what to say at this point. "World Leaders" are so hamstrung over the political implications of their actions they are not leading.

A war is started with no clear goal and nobody wants to take responsibility for it.

WHO'S ON FIRST!