Result of AWOL President During Libyan Crisis – Complete Disarray Among Allies

Posted on March 24, 2011


Ok all of you countries who want to weaken the west by breaking up NATO and other organizations and treaties between them.  Obama is here to help.  The President’s sojourn in South America has netted these multiple headlines in the Daily Mail:

Who’s in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

  • Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
  • French propose a new political ‘committee’ to oversee operations
  • Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign’s direction
  • Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
  • No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes ‘neutralises’ Libyan military machine
  • U.K. ministers say war could last ’30 years’
  • Italy to ‘take back control’ of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
  • Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians – calls bombing a ‘crusade’

Note the Russian use of the word “crusade” – a tip of the hat to Muslims from North Africa to the Middle East.  Low Blow.

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.

If the Germans are not providing AWACS surveillance, then we have to provide it at greater cost both and terms of money and perhaps in terms of lessening our protection for our troops in Iran and Iraq.