I should probably apologize to the Keystone Kops for that headline (but I won’t)!  The UK Daily Mail posted an article today about the squabbling that is going on in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) regarding the military operation in Libya. 

The article reports:

“President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces within days and NATO would have a coordinating role.”

America has maintained a leadership role in the world since World War II.  It is a shame that the Obama Administration is choosing to give up that role.  There is no other democracy currently in a position to assume the responsibility that we are giving up.

One of the problems with having NATO take over the operations in Libya is that the unrest in Libya is not an obvious threat to Europe, which NATO was formed to protect.  There is also the issue of whether or not it is legal for NATO to authorize an air strike to kill Gaddafi.

The article further reports the comments of a NATO diplomat:

“‘Yesterday’s meeting became a little bit emotional,’ the envoy said, adding that France had argued that the coalition led by France, Britain and the United States should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

“‘Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn’t make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,’ the diplomat said.

“Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“‘There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,’ he told news channel CNN Turk.”

Meanwhile, yesterday the Washington Examiner reported on the rules of war being placed on Americans involved in the military action in Libya.  These are some of the comments of General Carter Ham, the man who is in command of the United States attacks on Libya:

“Ham was asked what U.S. forces are instructed to do when they encounter pro-Gadhafi military units that are heavily armed but aren’t actually attacking civilians. “What we look for is, to the degree that we can, to discern intent,” Ham explained. He described a hypothetical situation in which an American pilot spotted a Libyan unit south of Benghazi. If the pilot determined the unit was moving toward the city, he could attack. If he determined the unit was setting up some sort of position, he could also attack. But if he determined the unit was moving away, then he couldn’t attack. “There’s no simple answer,” Ham said. “Sometimes these are situations that brief much better at headquarters than they do in the cockpit of an aircraft.””

This is just stupid.  Are we there to fight or just to be shot at?  If you want a humanitarian mission, send the United Nations!  If we are going to put men in harm’s way, we need to allow them to fight.  What we are seeing in Libya is an example of what happens when a Commander-in-Chief has no military experience, no practical business experience and no administrative experience.