Hagel: Enforce 'Palestine' On The Pre '67 Lines By Sending U.S. Troops Into A $160B Death Trap

The real reason President Obama wants Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense so bad is not just because he's a Republican who can be a convenient figleaf for the president's planned hollowing out of our military.

It's because he profoundly agrees with President Obama's views on Israel and with top level Obama advisers like the president's NSC assistant Samantha Power. The way to 'solve' what they see as the Israel problem is to invade with U.S. troops, forcibly evict any Jews living outside the pre '67 lines including Jerusalem and leave American 'peacekeepers' in place to enforce it.

That is exactly what Chuck Hagel, long time Israel hater and former Carter NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcraft, Arab lobbyist Carla Hills and a slew of the usual suspects proposed to President Obama in a 2009 report entitled "“A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement”.

The report calls for an imposed settlement and of course, links the Israel problem with al-Qaeda, even though the Arabs waged genocidal jihad on Israel before al-Qaeda was even in existence.Here are a few lovely ideas contained in this document. First it mentions that America's pro-Israel community might be a tad upset, but that an American president ought to be able to perform the massive con job needed to convince most Americans why this is so vital, and why vast amounts of taxpayer dollars need to be spent:

"A new U.S. effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement may anger certain domestic constituencies. We do not, however, believe it is beyond the capability of any American President to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and public expenditure to make it work."


Yes, this calls for yet another episode of nation building at the American taxpayer's expense.

The report calls for a non-militarized Palestinians state, enforced by an estimated 60,000 U.S. troops under UN mandate, plus, believe it or not, Egyptians and Jordanians ( who will of course be paid for by the American taxpayer as well. The document envisions this as being in place for - wait for it - 15 years. It also calls for U.S. recognition and support of Hamas ( "shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior.")

As if Hamas hadn't already made its views totally clear as well as its behavior! Hagel and company want to Israelis to lay down and accept a terrorist group with clearly genocidal intentions as a 'peace partner', backed up financial aid to Hamas and by U.S. force of arms. And that demilitarized Palestinian state? The Arabs were quick to disavow that almost as soon as Israeli PM Netanyahu proposed it.

The report goes on to link the creation of Israel with 'considerable and ongoing Palestinian suffering' as though Arab violence and support for a jihad against Israel with the murder of every Jew in Palestine had nothing to do with that. Needless to say, there's no mention of the enforced ethnic cleansing of almost a million Jews for the Arab world and their suffering. it also links U.S. problems with Iran to the 'Israel problem', as though all the Ayatollahs need to become peaceful and give up their nuclear program is Israeli capitulation and the creation of 'Palestine'. There's also a slam at "militant settlers and their political supporters", with no mention of Israeli attempts to swap land for peace in Gaza or via Oslo.

But wait..there's more. The report urges that Israel be muscled into ceding the strategic Golan Height back to Syria..in exchange for a Syrian promise "to participate in no anti-Israeli alliances of any kind" and to make an attempt to "use its influence" to get the likes of Hezbollah to agree to peace with Israel.The Syrians might agree - why not? But you can guarantee that once they have the land back, the promises will be quickly forgotten.

I'm sure President Obama absolutely drooled as he read this. That's likely one reason why Chuck Hagel was made co-chairman of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board.

There was an interesting NATO analysis and feasibility study of this proposal made by Florence Gaub, an analyst NATO Defense College. She mentions the following points:

"..there are over 19 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. In total, 4.2 million inhabitants in the area live in cities of this kind, with more than half a million living in refugee camps. This itself implies two things: first, arms caches are difficult to locate without local knowledge, and arms smuggle is facilitated greatly. Disarmament measures would be even more difficult to enforce than they already are under friendlier circumstances."

In other words, like UNSC 1701, disarmament would simply not occur..especially if aome of the peacekeeping force were Arab or Turks.

"Independently from the local security forces, the NATO force in Palestine (hence the minimalist version) would, if it follows the example of the successful cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, need forces ranging from 43,700 to 76,000 men, including the police forces. Of these, between 16,100 and 28,000 would patrol Gaza, and between 27,600 and 48,000 the West Bank. Page 10

Current theatres of operations would have to be reduced in size before a suitable size NATO mission in Palestine would be available without introducing longer deployments – something many Allies would like to avoid."

"Stabilisation missions are largely infantry missions. This is topped in our case by the fact that in worst case scenario, the tasks would entail urban warfare and counterinsurgency, which are also infantry heavy tasks."

In other words, (a) most of our NATO allies would be even less anxious to assume the cost of maintaining combat troops in the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria as they were in Afghanistan,especially for the 15 years anticipated, so most of them would be Americans or paid for by the U.S. (b) since disarmament is unlikely, these troops (as well as Israeli civilians) would be sitting ducks for terrorism attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah's al-Aksa brigade and others.

Needless to say, since the American taxpayers are likely to tire fairly quickly of seeing American troops come home in body bags while defending 'Palestine' th emission would quickly collapse...except the Arabs would have the land, Israel would be left with a lot of dead civilians and indefensible borders and the security guarantees given them would be absolutely worthless...just as they were in Gaza and Lebanon.And the cost, essentially money borrowed from China to enforce 'Palestine' would be staggering.Remember, it currently costs around $100,000 per year to deploya an American soldier.

"Aside from the costs for the mission itself, additional costs can be expected, due to the training of the Palestinian police, building infrastructure and providing equipment. Some estimates calculate between $9.61 billion and $16.72 billion per year, not calculating reconstruction efforts, which in the case of the recommended 5 years would result in a total number between $48.05 billion and $83.6 billion."

"NATO’s mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure. One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider.

"The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares – densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency. Thus, this mission would need thorough preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success. At the current stage, and with its other operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan."

There's another little detail that needs to be explored. Suppose Israel decides not to cooperate in her own national suicide? What if they don't accede to dividing Jerusalem again ans creating 500,000 Jewish refugees?

Ah, that's the fun part. Israel isn't Serbia. They're a nuclear power with a well trained and well armed military. So either implementing this diktat either involves NATO,led by America, attacking Israel, perhaps in coordination with Arab armies (an unlikely scenario, but not impossible with this president) or a total severing of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

This is why President Barack Obama wants Chuck Hagel in so badly.

Any Senator whom votes to confirm Chuck Hagel when this comes to a vote needs to realize that this is exactly what they're voting for. Deploying 60,000 U.S. troops into a death trap, spending $160,000 billion we don;t have on 'Palestine' and severing the American-Israeli alliance.

As Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe said earlier this week, anyone voting to confirm the likes of Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary is going to be held accountable. They can't say later they weren't aware, that they didn't know.

Turkey's Erdogan: "We Blocked The Inclusion Of Israel In NATO"

Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quite open about the matter when talking to reporters on a flight to Budapest, Hungary:

“We, as Turkey, would stop wrong steps [in NATO]. Thus, we saw such steps toward Israel’s inclusion in NATO. We prevented that,” Erdoğan said. “We have our own red lines. For us, to be involved in NATO with Israel is never considerable. To be with such a cruel understanding would conflict with our structure, history and culture.”

Erdogan also spoke about Turkey's 50 year quest to join the EU, saying the union was “hesitant because the members will not be able to do everything they want when Turkey gets in.”

In an interesting sidebar, Turkey has been making noises about ditching NATO to join the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO), which regular members of Joshua's Army will recall me mentioning before.

The SCO is an organization with goals of becoming the anti-NATO, consisting of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Mongolia have the status of observer states. It focuses on trade, security and military cooperation, energy ( they're working on putting together a gas cartel) and joint development projects. The six member states control 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and its population is a quarter of the world's. With observer states included, its affiliates account for half of the earth's population. It also offers an alternative bloc to western democracy and to using the U.S. dollar as reserve currency for energy dealing.

If Turkey were to quit NATO and join, it would be a major realignment of the world's power blocs.

Erdogan first approached the SCO in 2011 and was granted 'dialogue partner' last year. They now want in as a full member, and are dangling quitting NATO (and revealing all of NATO's secrets) as bait.

For Turkey, the pluses are interesting. As Erdogan himself has said, the SCO "is much better, it is much more powerful [than the EU], and we share values with its members."

Those values are essentially non-Democratic, without the sort of commitment to freedom and human rights that characterize some of the other members of NATO.

Turkey also shares Islam with most of the membership.Every one of the members and observer states except Russia, China and India are Muslim, and a number of them are primarily composed of people of Turkic origin with cultural and linguistic heritage in common with the Turks.

The minuses? Turkey would stand to lose a great deal of foreign aid if they switched sides, there are still divisions in the country between Turks who are more Islamist in allegiance and those who still lean more towards the West.And Erdogan has three other issues that get in the way of his joining the SCO.

 First many if the six main members, especially  India, China and Russia are strongly opposed the Islamism Erdogan champions, and in th ecase of the three main members I cited, all have problems with Islamist aggression and terrorism.

Second, Erdogan's support for the insurgents trying to topple Syrian dictator Basher Assad sets him against one major member, Russia and one observer state, Iran.

And third, while Turkey's economy appears robust, it isn't.Inflation is at 6.5% and rising, food prices are soaring, the official unemployment rate is at 9.5% ( which means the real rate is closer to 13 or 14%) and there is a major imploding domestic credit bubble in consumer loans, which Turkey's banks are slamming out at 30% interest and up.Meanwhile exports continue to decline and Turkey's current account deficits is running at about $70 billion a year.

Since a good part of what the SCO is involved with is economic growth and investment, it might be problematic for them to take on a member whose economy could tank and become a drag on the organization, perhaps even a candidate for bailouts.  

According to one of my notorious Little Birdies, China is more or less favorably disposed to letting Turkey in as an observer state at least, while Russia and to a lesser extent India are strongly opposed.

Some horsetrading may go on, and we'll see what develops.

Obama's Apology Fails To 'Calm Things Down' - Two More American Soldiers Murdered In Afghanistan

Contrary to President Obama's statements to that effect, his groveling apology hasn't 'calmed things down' in Afghanistan after the burning of Q'urans Taliban prisoners were using to send secret messages to each other.

Two more American soldiers were murdered by an Afghan soldier and a literacy teacher at a joint base in southern Afghanistan shortly after NATO Commander General John Allen ordered a small number of foreign advisers to return to work at Afghan ministries after more than a week of being locked down in secure locations.

And the Afghan government, our supposed allies, are calling for American troops who were responsible for the Q'uran burnings to be turned over to them for trial under Sharia law.

President Obama apparently sent a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzhai promising that the troops involved would be punished for their actions.

Part of the three-page letter to Karzai said, “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies. We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

There is an investigation byNATO that is ongoing as I write this.

Turkey Says Will Not Allow NATO To Use Its Territory To Attack Iran

Turkey, a member of NATO issued a statement today that they will not allow their fellow NATO allies to use Turkish soil or facilities to attack Iran. The statement came from Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, according to RIA Novosti. Davutoglu ended by saying that the borders between Iran and Turkey have been borders of peace and will remain that way.

This is the second time the Islamist regime in Turkey has pulled this sort of thing.You might remember that the Turks refused to allow US forces to go through Turkey en route Iraq, causing America and its allies a great deal of extra logistical trouble and expense. You have to wonder why we still consider them allies at all.

Hug and kiss Erdogan some more, Mr. President!

The Fruits Of The Obama Doctrine - Poland Distances Itself From The US

With all the headlines over President Obama's contretemps with Israel, one item that was barely noticed here in America but was noticed much more in Europe was Poland's ex-Solidarity leader Lech Walesa snubbing President Obama and declining to meet with him during President Obama's brief stopover in Poland.

While President Obama will undoubtedly get a polite and friendly reception in Poland, Walesa's feelings on the matter are a lot more indicative of what's really going on. In contrast to Bush Administration, which went out of its way to cultivate a warm relationship with Poland and what ex-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld referred to as 'New Europe', the Obama Administration has essentially them overboard in favor of appeasing the Russians and 'pushing the reset button.'

The Poles in particular had always been close to America. They understood that it was President Reagan's support for solidarity and his work with the Pope that playeda major part in destroying the Evil Empire that enslaved them, and Poland's joining of NATO in 1999 only cemented the close ties.

The Poles, like many other ex-Soviet colonies, saw the US as the ultimate protector of Poland's independence from Russian imperialism, something that strikes a deep historic chord in Poland.

It was Poland who was one of a trio of US allies, along with Britain and Australia, who sent troops to take part in the invasion of Iraq.

The Poles and the Czech Republic took a major risk of antagonizing Russia during the Bush Administration by signing on to President Bush's missile defense system in 2008 and allowing bases in their countries.

Their reward was to be unceremoniously sold out by President Obama, who repudiated the agreement in exchange for a Russian 'reset' that was supposed to include additional Russian assistance with Iran but ultimately netted absolutely nothing..since the Russians already had what they wanted, and could afford to sit back and chuckle at the president behind his back. And in an amazing display of ignorance and insensitivity, the announcement that the US was leaving the Poles and Czech twisting in the wind came on on September 17th, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union's invasion of eastern Poland during World War II in collaboration with the Nazis.

To add insult to injury, when Polish President Polish president Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, Solidarity leader Anna Walentynowicz,Poland's National Bank President Slawomir Skrzypek, Army chief of staff General Franciszek Gagor were killed in a tragic and somewhat mysterious airplane crash over Russian territory, President Obama did not attend, claiming problems with an ash cloud from a volcanic eruption in Iceland. But the presidents of Russia, the Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Georgia along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Horst Koehler,French President Nicolas Sarkozy,Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Norway’s King Harald V and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves,Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, Slovakian President Ivan Gasparovic,Slovenian President Danilo Turkand and South Korean Prime Minister Chung Un-chan all attended and managed to make it in somehow.

The Poles, in consequence, have distanced themselves from the US to a degree. The new administration of Prime Minister Donald Tusk is noticeably more deferential to Russia, who supplies all its oil, and to Germany, one of its chief economic and trading partners.

The Poles simply realize that with President Obama in the White House, a US alliance is not quite what it was, and other countries in the region with the same realization have joined together in a military alliance outside of NATO known as the Visegrád Group, consisting of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The Visegrád Group ( named after a Hungarian castle where the leaders of the medieval kingdoms of Poland, Hungary and Bohemia met in the 14th century to try and put together a similar alliance) has actually been in existence since 1991 after the Cold War. What's different, and almost revolutionary is that for the first time, these countries have agreed to make it a military alliance as well, with Poland, the largest and most prosperous of the four in command.

The decision to create a joint military command is of major significance and shows exactly how these countries now evaluate NATO and the strength and resolve of the man in the White House.

I would not be at all surprised to see other nations join in. Serbia comes immediately to mind, as does Lithuania, but Bulgaria and Romania are possibilities as well if the Hungarians and Romanians ever settle their inherent differences over borders and tensions over the Hungarian minority living in Romania.

This bodes well for members of the Visegrád Group who are showing great wisdom in taking the initiative to provide for their own common defense. It does not bode well for the United States, burdened with leadership that adheres to the Obama Doctrine - disrespecting and distancing itself from its allies while appeasing America's enemies.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Pakistan And NATO Forces Exchange Fire

Yet another confrontation with our 'ally' Pakistan...

In what's being described as an 'incident' at Admi Kot Post in the North Waziristan tribal region of Pakistan, Pakistani ground troops opened fire on two NATO helicopters that they claim crossed into Pakistan’s airspace from Afghanistan early this morning, according to a Pakistani Army statement. There was a brief firefight afterwards between NATO forces and Pakistani troops, and according to the Pakistanis two of their soldiers were wounded in the fighting.

This is an area that basically has been ceded to the Taliban and the tribes that Pakistan only marginally controls. It's a stronghold in particular of the Haqqani network, a jihadi group supported by Pakistan's notorius ISI intelligence service. Haqqani fighters regularly cross into Afghanistan to attack our troops.

This is not the first time that NATO and Pakistani forces have exchanged fire. Eight months ago, a similar incident left two Pakistani soldiers dead.

Meanwhile, Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani is en route to China, obviously sending a message to the Obama Administration that they have other options.

Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee flew to Pakistan over the weekend to try and smooth over things in the wake of the fall out over the Osama bin-Laden killing. Based ontoday's events, he didn't make much progress.

Bottom line is that we can't trust the Pakistanis, and they certainly don't trust us.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Libya - Stalemate

NATO's war of choice in Libya appears to be dead in the water as far as a final resolution goes.

Even with NATO airpower, the rebels lack the military muscle to defeat Khaddaffi, and while NATO has succeeded in protecting the rebel's base in Benghazi, the rebels haven't been able come close to delivering the coup de grâce to the Brother Leader.Aside from Benghazi, the only other major city the rebels still hold is Misrata..which is under seige by Khaddaffi's troops and could fall any day.

What's more, the rebels are apparently broke. They're seeking a $2 billion 'loan' from their 'allies' to purchase food, medicine, and fuel ( yes, fuel..in Libya) so as to be able to keep up the fight against Khaddaffi.

It is a little amusing, I admit, to see the British and French so engulfed in a quagmire of their own making after they prematurely dumped their good friend Khaddaffi and all those lucrative oil deals they made with him, figuring that the rebels were a shoo-in. Now that the rebels are on the ropes, they're stuck with them, and there's no real end in sight.

The US is officially still having American aircraft perform missions, but there's definitely been a ramp down, and Cameron and Sarkozy are screaming for more decisive action on the part of the so-called coalition.

That coalition, which goes by the moniker of The Libyan Contact Group and includes Britain, France, The US, and other countries lending military support held yet another meeting in Doha, Qatar yesterday , and agreed in a released statement that “Qaddafi and his regime had lost all legitimacy and he must leave power, allowing the Libyan people to determine their own future.”

What they're not agreed on is exactly how to go about that little task short of sending in ground troops, which no one really wants to pull the trigger on, especially President Obama.

To add to the mix, the Germans, who were sensibly opposed to the whole adventure from the start, have started a peace initiative to negotiate an end to conflict in partnership with the African Union.

The AU is not particularly interested in seeing Khaddaffi deposed, and sent a peace delegation to see him April 10 headed by South African President Jacob Zuma. The German emissary was Bernd Schmidtbauer, former chief of the Bundesnachrichtendienst ( BND), Germany's equivalent of the CIA or MI5.

The delegation met with Khaddaffi and his son Saif several times and Khaddaffi agreed to the immediate cessation of all hostilities and to negotiations with a view to "adopting and implementing the political reforms necessary for eliminating the causes of the current crisis," according to a statement issued April 10th.

What they're talking about is elections, where one of Khaddaffi's sons could conceivably run for President and win,given Libya's experience and tradition with western style elections and democracy ( and yes, I'm being sarcastic).

The problem is that the rebels, backed up by the British and French are refusing to consider any settlement that doesn't involve Khaddaffi turning over power to them immediately and leaving the country.And at this point, there's absolutely no reason for Khaddaffi to agree to that whatsoever.

Of course, any deal that leaves Khaddaffi in power, or might pave the way for one of his sons to take power would be a major political, military and financial setback for the French and the British, both of whom were confident of laying their hands on all those oil concessions at bargain prices once the rebels were in and Khaddaffi was out of the way.

Unfortunately for them, Khaddaffi proved a lot stronger and more durable than they thought, the rebels ended up lacking the punch and support needed for his overthrow...and the Brits and French are stuck with a losing bet on the wrong horse they're now desperately trying to turn into a winner.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

US Switches War “Strategy” To Regime Change And All-Out Attack On Khaddaffi

Yes, I know...everything Obama said Monday night was pretty much horse manure.

The rebels have been knocked back pretty decisively and have retreated back to the east, losing Sirte and Ras Lanuf. The city of Misrata is now under attack from Khaddaffi's troops in spite of the no-fly zone and the air-to-ground attacks, and it looks like to rebels could be forced back to Benghazi again...which means they wouldn't control the oil the Europeans crave.

In response to that, Obama has http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsecretly agreed to start arming the rebels, even though we know next to nothing about them except that there appear to be a lot of rebels who used to be shooting at our troops in Iraq, and who have al-Qaeda ties.

And as I remarked before, when have you ever seen the US start supplying arms to people and not send in 'advisers' to show them how to use them? So we're talking ground troops, something Obama flat out guaranteed would never happen.

Another thing that will likely occur is air attacks on Tripoli in order to blunt the advance of Khaddaffi's forces..which means instead of doing what Obama said was our mission, protecting civilians, we're going to be causing civilian casualties.

This is an obscene mess, with America involved in a war in a country that posed no security threat to us whatsoever. After this, we are almost committed to regime change - and hoping that what follows is not simply another edition of Islamist fascism, something we have no guarantee of whatsoever.

This hypocritical nonsense was brought on by our incompetent president's hubris, hypocrisy and bad judgment, and I only hope that all it costs us is money. But I can almost guarantee you it will end up costing us more than that.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Khaddaffi Still Advancing On Benghazi In Spite Of UN Resolution

The UN Security Council belatedly came up with a resolution that called for a ceasefire and authorized the use of "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya. Pity they weren't so decisive after Lockerbie...or for that matter, after any number of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians by the 'Palestinians.'

President Obama defined a very limited American military role, saying the U.S. would help set the stage "for the international community to act together," ( whatever that might mean) and emphatically ruled out the use of ground troops. He said that the 'necessary measures' would be focused on protecting civilians, not regime change.

That of course leaves open the question of why regime change isn't the objective if the US is going to commit military force against Khaddaffi, but I'm certain the establishment foreign policy mavens have an answer all ready.

Considering how confused and contradictory the early US response was, it's quite obvious that President Obama would have preferred much to simply vote present on this one. But that made him appear indecisive, which wasn't so good politically, so he simply attempted to have the best of both worlds - we'll intervene rhetorically and perhaps with a no fly zone that's still very much in the planning stages, including a great deal of diplomatic back and forth and uncertainty about whhat kind of military support the Libyan rebels will receive, if any.

A meeting is set for Saturday in Paris attended by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton planned to attend along with leaders from the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League, and Ban Ki-Moon Secretary General of the U.N. to continue planning and come to an agreement on exactly how to enforce the UN resolution.

The most frequent buzz word is a no fly zone, which itself is going to be an interesting endeavor.

To implement it, the 'International Community' would have to start by taking out Libya's air defenses, mostly Russian-built SA-6 surface-to-air missile sites, and radar installations.

Considering that Col. Khaddaffi has already moved most of his air force in to bases along the Sahara that are beyond the range of carrier-based planes, taking out his air defenses is likely going to involve mid-air refueling under combat conditions, a hairy endeavor at the best of times.

Once the air defenses are taken out, the 'International Community's' planes would start enforcing the no-fly zone and work on preventing Col. Gadhafi's army from advancing any further into eastern Libya. So far , President Obama trying to mollify his Leftist base by saying that the US will only provide support for those flights, but a senior defense official was quoted as saying off the record that the president hasn't ruled out using U.S. combat aircraft for enforcement missions. No surprise there!

In fact, I'd be very surprised if the US didn't provide most of the pilots and planes, rather than support.If,in fact, a no fly zone gets going at all.

Khaddaffi obviously senses the ambivalence and uncertainty.

After the UN Resolution was passed, Khaddaffi's Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa read a statement in Tripoli stating that a member of the U.N., Libya "is bound to accept the Security Council resolution and has decided an immediate cease-fire and the cessation of all military operations." He added that the government was willing to enter into "dialogue" with all parties.

The reality? There's been no ceasefire.Gaddafi's forces are continuing to shell the western city of Misrata, where 25 people were reported killed on Friday by a doctor in the city. All water has been cut off and the city is under siege and not expected to hold out much longer.

In the east, Khaddaffi's forces are continuing to advance on the rebel capitol of Benghazi, and there's very little in the way of resistance before they arrive on the outskirts.

Khaddaffi is obviously going to try and wrap things up on the ground while the 'International Community' is still debating its response.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!