i wasn t so sure at the time. but it turned out the president had thought it pretty well through. i don t think the resolution can accomplish that. let me read you a portion of a letter general martin dempsey is, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff wrote to the senate armed services committee about military strikes. he says this depending on duration, the costs would be in the billions. and he writes later, there is a risk that the regime could withstand limited strikes by disbursing its assets. isn t there now a significant risk of mission creep whether this strike works or not? there definitely is a risk of whether you call it mission creep or just the unpredictable. i think general dempsey is right to underscore that we don t really know what a first limited attack will do. i would go further. i would say it s probably not going to do that much militarily as much as anything, it s
him yesterday about this. afghanistan started with get bin laden, topple the taliban. those missions are complete. but every year there is a new mission. there is a term for it in the military called mission creep. what happens when a mission continually changes its objectives they call it mission creep. that s a problem because then you never really know what you are fighting to do. is not mission creep the necessary prerequisite for perpetual war? yes. and let me just tell you the obama version of this. obama comes into office, having campaigned on ending two wars in iraq and afghanistan but that it morphs into a war on terror. he says we re at war with al qaeda. we ve lost the limitation of countries and he s now formulated as a war without end. and it is only if we know what our missions are that we can then define their achievements and when we do not have missions then the door way opens for permanent war and it is upon the american people i presume to demand mission
which is in naples. so the structure exists, the control exists, but what you have with the no-fly zone, i iathink, is essentially vertica separation, no-fly zone, up to a certain altitude, nato owns. but the u.s., france, and the uk, for now, will continue to prosecute the air-to-ground support to go after targets to achieve the u.n. s mandate, which is, let s separate these warring factions, let s get gadhafi s forces off, let s get the rebels off, and let s protect civilian lives. so it appears to be very, very complicated. it s still within nato s purview. so how likely is it, really, that this mission is going to expand even further to include, say, taking out libyan forces threatening the rebels? and would you call that mission creep? i d very much call it mission creep. and in ft, when you look at the u.n. mandate to stop the killing of civilians, do we define rebels as civilians? or are they recognized as an some sort?of
planes is not enough to enforce the no-fly zone. we have the enterprise in the red sea, as jennifer griffin just mentioned. i think at some point, the no ply zone will need reenforcement and really it s going to be the united states to do that. whether you call it mission creep or whatever, it appears that the united states is going to be much more deeply involved. uma: and that s what tony schaeffer has been saying this afternoon here in our studios, that the united states is going to be more deeply involved and the implication of that, runs deep because right now, we are involved in two other military situations, one being iraq and the other afghanistan. and what are your thoughts in terms of moving forward and knowing that we still don t know what the end game is here? well, the united states, and i think lt. colonel schaeffer made this clear and it s something that hasn t been discussed for quite some time. we re dealing with not just a dictator, we re dealing with a dictator w