1. Sec State Clinton herself said no-fly zones do not work.
2. Great Britain released one of the Lockerbie bombers due to pressure from BP so they could drill in Libya.
3. France imports 15% of their oil from Libya
Both of these countries have a lot to lose from an unstable Libya so why would they prefer the "rebels" over the current regime. While I try not to sound like a conspiracy nut here what does the US gain from being involved.
It seems to me that NATO had to be involved because the British nor the French have the command, control, communication and intelligence (C3I) to coordinate a coalition. For that they needed US involvement. It would seem our commander in chief (CinC) and his staff have no idea what they are doing and may have been duped into undertaking this operation.
Oh by the way the grand coalition they keep talking about...There were twice as many coalition partners for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Just saying.
Meanwhile the President says he has talked to enough members of congress to be OK with going to war. Yet there has been no formal hearings or consultations with congress on the current conflict. Today it was released that the CinC sent a letter to congress. Call me underwhelmed, again I ask what is the end game?
There are better rebellions to be supporting namely the one in Syria which could actually give the US a strategic victory if the Assad regime could be overthrown. While the Sunnis that take over probably will not be our friends it might be an opportunity to separate Syria from Hezbollah and Iran.
Back to Libya Mr. President we demand an answer.