Little Deebow has been tugging at my elbow since about seven days ago when the first "FIREWORKS" signs appeared as we drove past the grocery store. Seems he has a bit of a penchant for watching things go "KABLUEY!!!", but in a good way.
"KABLUEY!" in a bad way would be the way I would describe how the current president is experiencing his military successes, particularly in Libya, where the rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air are currently giving way to Qaddafi's flag still being there. The job being done by the UK press, who BTW have nothing invested in Chicago Jesus, is the job that our press ought to be doing, but like a co-dependent, enabling, abused spouse, just can't bring themselves to do the right thing.
And the Daily Mail is giving the Obama Administration a proper poop-hammering over how feckless and untruthful Chicago Jesus has been over things like the words "limited." Well, according to Nicole Dalrymple, spokeswoman for AFRICOM:
"Since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties...Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance."
Let's do the math on that: 93 days (so far) and 3,475 sorties, which is about 37 sorties a day, of those, nearly 9 of them that day were a "strike package" and within those strike packages, 1 of those per day dropped ordnance or engaged in "hostilities" of some kind. Maybe the CINC is right, our involvement is limited.
I would like the terminology to be something like "ineffective" because when you drop ordnance once a day, that doesn't sound very "suppressive."
And with more word games from the State Department, and diplomats don't run combat operations for a very good reason, the bombs bursting in air is likely to continue;
The White House declined to comment on how 801 strike sorties constitutes “limited” involvement, but Harold Koh, a State Department legal adviser, said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that “when U.S forces engage in a limited military mission, that involves limited exposure for U.S. troops, and limited risk of serious escalation, and employs limited military means, we are not in the kind of hostilities of the kind envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
He said there have been “no active exchanges of fire with hostile forces” despite AFRICOM’s statement that weapons had been dropped during 132 sorties.
"No active exchanges of fire with hostile forces?" Ummm, Mr. Koh, there is no such thing as a "passive" exchange of fire, if you don't believe me, look it up in your PIO reference guide or your protocol handbook, but since you might not have time because you are tying yourself in knots trying to explain this, I will clear it up for you; anytime you are dropping bombs on someone, you are "actively" exchanging fire. Just because they don't shoot back, it doesn't change the nature of the transaction...
And believe me, exchanging fire with your enemy once a day; while it can be once too many, is not nearly enough when talking about "suppressing" something, like air defenses. And if you are providing 70 percent of the ISR capability to the operation, and flying most of the refueling support for this entire operation, your role is far from limited.
This is what happens when you lead from the rear, and if our mission continues to be murky and gets continually redefined between noninformative press conferences, then all of the two bit, tin pot dictators in the world will know that they are safe for at least the next 16 months, because we can't seem to kill the one in Libya, if that is our mission.
And what does this say about our word in the world? Qadaffi did what he is supposed to by coming forward and admitting his WMD programs and cooperating with the US during the last administration, and for that he was rewarded by having bombs dropped on him once per day, maybe. Kind of like teaching your dog to sit and then when he does it, you beat him for it. Any of you egghead diplo-dummies over at State want to explain to me how this perverted form of carrot/stick theory works?
The debate over whether the WPA applies or doesn't apply or whether it passes constitutional muster is something that will continue to go on, but as I have talked about before, consistency is a habit of the successful and makes your leadership believable. If the president says he needs Congress to buy off on attacking Iran, then he better say the same damn thing about attacking anywhere else as well. If I was in Congress (believe me, I have thought about it), I would lead the charge to cut off the money to this little venture (as it appears some on both sides of the aisle are doing) and get this President to toe the line ask for a "by your leave;" and trolls, that is called "checks and balances" and if you never heard that term in any of your gender studies classes, maybe you ought to mosey over the resource center and have the nice old lady behind the counter point you in the direction of the reference section. I am certain you can find it there.
But since this President is determined to lead from the rear, I will give him a quick tip on leadership that might help him as he goes about his daily business on the golf course; soldiers benefit from orders and direction that is consistent and not constantly changing. If you can just stop being consistently consistent, then we might be able to actually get our mission accomplished, and you should be able at some point to actually nail down and define what our mission actually is there, and get Congress to buy off on it.
Somewhere between the ladies tee on the third hole and you getting your ball out of the rough near the water hazard would suit most of us nicely.