.
March 23rd, 2011
05:00 PM ET

France wants committee to run war in Libya. Good idea?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who is refreshingly open and honest - said: "We haven't done something like this, kind of on the fly before."

He was talking about the coalition attacks on Moammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya, why the United States was still in control, why tensions are rising among members of the coalition, why there's no plan for any group or nation to take the lead. The allies, you see, aren't getting along so well. In fact, there are reports today that the coalition is falling apart.

France yesterday suggested a committee be formed - outside of NATO - to oversee the military operations. It would be a political steering committee and would include members of the Arab League. See if a committee is running the war, no one has to take responsibility if things go to hell and everyone can take credit if they go well.

The French were early backers of the no-fly zone and were the first nation to launch airstrikes against Libya on Saturday.

The Italians have accused the French of not originally backing a NATO-run operation to be in a better position for oil contracts when a new government is established in Libya.

It's not just the French causing problems…

Russia's defense minister yesterday called for a cease-fire in Libya.

Germany today pulled its naval ships out of NATO operations in the Mediterranean over a disagreement over the Libyan campaign's direction. It's not pretty.

Foreign ministers from Western coalition partners will meet in London Tuesday along with members of the Arab League and the African Union to see what can be done.

Here’s my question to you: France wants a committee to run the war in Libya. Is that a good idea?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bryan in Colorado:
Yes, I think it is a good idea. Handing command over to Allied forces shows solidarity. Let the allies figure this one out for a a change. Hopefully they will decide to drop a missile on Gadhafi himself so this thing will come to a swift end.

Hal:
A committee? You've got to be kidding. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. This won’t come out as good. We've done our part. We should tell the coalition they have 48 hrs to take over and then we're gone, whether they have something in place or not.

Norm:
This is the first conflict in recent memory where no one has a plan, everyone is passing the buck, no one knows the players and no one knows the end-game. All we know for certain is that we have wasted a vast amount of expensive cruise missiles. The replacement costs are extraordinarily high and this approach depletes our stockpile. Where is the sense in this approach? I'm all for propping up democracies, supporting freedom and liberty, but where is the plan?

P.M.:
Jack, how many people have to die before the coalition gets rid of the problem in Libya, whether accidentally or purposely? Gadhafi must go, hopefully sooner than later.

Maje in Vancouver, British Columbia:
It's a great idea if you want to see the Odyssey Dawn crew out-daffy Gadhafi! I can see it all now: Inspector Clouseau draws up the battle plans and Mr. Bean leads Larry, Moe and Curly in the charge. And the wacky Libyan colonel dies laughing.

Martin in West Virginia:
Wow! I worked with an American subsidiary of a French company for fifteen years, and this is so typical, not just of the French, but of the Europeans in general. This is a bad, bad, bad idea. Define the objective, put an American in charge, and Get'r done.

Dave in Phoenix:
As long as we get to move out and let others have control, with little to no involvement, sounds good to me... committee away!


Filed under: France • Libya
soundoff (107 Responses)
  1. Gerry

    Fantastic idea as long as they don't use assets/resources from the United States. Its amazing how many good ideas come to light when another country(s) is footing the bill. The United Nations is a good example as all of their projects are either partially or fully funded by the west.

    Gerry
    Arizona

    March 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
  2. John from Alabama

    Jack: Leadership by committee is not a good idea. Its lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. The military lives and works by a chain of command or commanders to accomplish a common purpose mission. The idea of leadership by committee reminds me of the United States Senate where there are alot of ideas, but little is accomplished. The military needs one action commander not a committee.

    March 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
  3. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua

    If the committee is Obama style, a gathering of the best expertise from war departments and State Departments, yes that's fine, but a la Obama there must be a Chairperson who synthesizes the committee's determinations.

    March 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
  4. george c paree

    I hope so americans are war sick .We cannt stop every bad guy.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
  5. Bradley, Portland OR

    I think we should just let France run it, and back out entirely now.

    We've done our part.

    We don't need to get involved in another open-ended costly boondoggle, especially when we don't know what kind of people we'd be helping replace Khaddafi. They could be Islamic radicals for all we know. It's very unlikely they'll create a Western-style secular democracy, though.

    And since Republicans in Congress refuse to raise taxes, I'd hate to have to explain to Grandma that they're going to cut her Social Security check to pay for this.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  6. Phyllis G Williams

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Nothing of that magnitude can succeed without an intelligent
    Committee from all the countries issuing orders.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  7. Loren, Chicago

    Good for France, but bad for military action. I have a better idea, let the French take the lead and see whether they've learned their lessons from Viet Nam and Algeria.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  8. Bizz, Quarryville Pennsylvania

    If having a committee run the war in Libya means not putting a western label on the war then it's a good idea. It is time for the United States to take a backseat. We have already bitten off more than we can chew by being involved in two wars.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
  9. B.J., Quincy, Il

    Yes, that way the US will not have to take all the blame for the action taken.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  10. Bryan from Colorado

    Yes, I think it is a good idea. Handing command over to Allied forces shows soloidarity. Let the allies figure this one out for a a change. Hopefully they will decide to drop a missile on Gadafy himself so this
    thing will come to a swift end. Saving more lives, time and money.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  11. Maje, Vancouver, British Columbia

    It's a great idea if you want to see the Odyssey Dawn crew out-daffy Ghadafi! I can see it all now: Inspector Clouseau draws up the battle plans and Mr. Bean leads Larry, Moe and Curly in the charge. And the whacky Libyan colonel dies laughing.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  12. Bob Kobs

    Committees do not make executive decisions. They debate and debate like the UN, then pass resolutions. This is a baaaad idea. Now you know why U.S. leadership is indispensable. Without it, the rest of the world is confused and lost.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
  13. Matt Toohey

    Oh great – that is just what we need. We can't get things right when we run the war now we need a committee – let France deal with it.

    Matt
    Rockford

    March 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  14. Alex in Bremerton, WA

    Throughout history war conducted by a committee will almost always end in disaster! One of the principles of war that has been taught since the days of Clausewitz is "Unity of Command." Only ONE person is in charge of a military operation if you want a chance to be successful.

    March 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  15. Pete in Georgia

    Committee ??
    What's next, going to the U.N. to ask permission to raise taxes ??

    Worldwide leadership has reached an all time low.

    Washington, Churchill, and Eisenhower must be rolling over in their graves.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  16. ken, atlantic city, nj

    We don't need a committe to run the war in libya. We need a committe to end the war in libya, iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. Time to stop the bombings, killings, and assasinations of people in other countries we don't like. The entire defense and supplemental war budget is borrowed money. Gaddafi blew up one plane, the u.s. has blow up thousands of planes, and buildings. The u.s. military killed a million people in iraq, nuked hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians with 2 nuclear bombs and yet we have the nerve to call gadaffi a mad man. The rebels in libya drew first blood so it is their mess to clean up not some french fry committee.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
  17. John Moore - New Britain, PA

    Jack,
    It is well proven that a committee cannot run anything. Just as there can only be one chef (french for chief) in the kitchen there has to be a visible leader for this Libyan campaign.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
  18. Dale

    Good idea as long it is not the U.S. leading, late France and the U.K. lead it is there OIL!

    Carlsbad N.M.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
  19. Phil, Georgia

    It doesn't matter, a committe or take turns, it should be an easy mission that does not take a rocket scientist to figure a strategy to check Khadafy. Its seems like its only the people out for a political game thats trying to muddy the waters.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
  20. Richard35 Canfield, Ohio

    Committee to do what? The only thing that needs to be done is to Remove the tyrant from office Dead or Alive!

    March 23, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  21. Gary H. Boyd

    I can just imagine what a guy like General George Patton would think of an idea like that: A committee Jack, A COMMITTEE - Not on your life. If a committee had been running the war in Europe 67 years ago, Paris would still be in Nazi hands and the French would be speaking German. No wonder France hasn't won a war in over a hundred years.

    Gary in Scottsdale, Arizona

    March 23, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  22. Mike B

    Could France also have a commitee run a war in Ruwanda, Darfur, Congo, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Togo, Burundi, Liberia, Botswana, Colombia, Afghanistan, Palestine, after all they civilian massacres everyday..., ah, maybe they dont have that much Oil to share with France, does really France care about Libyan civilians? Mike from NYC

    March 23, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
  23. FreedToChoose

    Of course it's a good idea. NATO has worked together for more than a half century. There are decent and capable people in every chair.

    Let the America Firsters go to work building a wall around the country and begin on the part that extends westward from Southern California to surround Hawaii. I'll buy the scuba gear, but no air tanks.

    Las Cruces, NM

    March 23, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
  24. Jenna

    France wants a committee to run the war in Libya. Is that a good idea?

    Sounds to me like France just expected the US to take the lead and they were sadly mistaken. So instead of taking the lead they pass it off on others. So typical, no one wants to take responsibility for anything these days.

    The only one who laid it out as it is was President Obama,. He told the world that this was not our "war" that we were only in a supporting role and would not take the lead.

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    March 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
  25. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    I believe we just let France run the entire war and bring all of our troops home. This entire issue is just another way to stimulate the economy and take peoples mind off of the real issues in America, jobs and education.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
  26. Cliff Glass - Rego Park, New York

    Jack,

    What a novel concept. Allies equally sharing cost, risk, and responsibility for a global military action. Neocons, take cover, American exceptionalism is definitely under attack.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  27. andyz Lynn, MA

    If you want to see the results of committee rule look at the U.N. Security Council. If that doesn't scare you check out the NATO Council of Ministers. Both are great examples of cowardice and ineptitude. If there is a concil running the show I hope we pull out completely.

    March 23, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  28. Dave in Phoenix

    As long as we get to move out and let others have control, with little to no involvement, sounds good to me...committee away!

    March 23, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
  29. thom richer

    Excuse my confusion, Jack, but are we, along with France et al, "at war" with Libya? Did I miss the declaration of war on Libya by Congress and Obama? If indeed we are in another Mid-East war,then we should not be debating who should "run" the war and quickly and completely crush the Libyan army and its commander in chief, Gadhafi without debate or hesitation. Either we are at war or we are not. To play politics with our troops, Libya's people without total commitment is a crime in itself. Either commit to war and victory or get the hell out. Gadhafi and his army should have been history by now if we were committed to doing so. Are we indeed at war with Libya, Jack?

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    March 23, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
  30. Phil

    If you want an issue to be killed, all you have to do is assign it to a committee. They will kick it around until it changes shape so bad that you can't recognize the original issue. Most committees can't control themselve let along assignments/issues assigned to them.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  31. Chris from Philadelphia

    We have plenty of committees in this country and they can't get anything done efficiently. So yeah running a war in Libya by committee should be great. Can only imagine how messy this will be in a couple months.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  32. Joe Ft Walton Bch Fl

    It is a very good idea, if they all decide to take him down. Gaddafi got to go now, if not what have we accomplish.?

    March 23, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  33. Paul Austin Texas

    Why not what a great idea work as a team something the USA lost long ago by the outsource idea that now seems to have been to optimistic to say the least. Any large project should work as a committee otherwise known as a team. I think the "team" should go for it.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  34. lou

    Skarkosy wanted this thing to increase his political clout in an upcoming election. If he wants to cash in on the glory, he should do the heavy lifting. Let him lead.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  35. Dave, Orlando, FL

    Only if the committee does not include us – let the rest of the world handle Libya. We have no real interest there but France does, so let them do the heavy lifting for once. I’m tired of fighting everyone else’s battles for them.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  36. Dee in New Paris Ohio

    Do you mean that France wants the U.S. to commit to helping them run the war in Libya? Or do you mean that FRANCE wants to commit to running the war but wants all the other nations that signed on o commit?

    Anyway, what I want to know is, between France, the U.S., and all the other U.N. nations who are willing to help get rid of Gadhafi, what's the holdup? How can it be that Libya has not already been conquered and the despot got rid of? It does not give one a lot of confidence in the ability of the allies if between them they have not accomplished their goal.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  37. Gerry luimes

    What doesFrance want ? A committe of Western coalisions, a committe of Arab c ountries, or a combination of those?We are already talking about war.Where it is going to end is every ones guess.The only solution,of course,would be to catch the dictator, a sly and cruel fox, and cookoo to boot. The International court will be impatiently waiting to get its hands on the man. The U.N contract ONLY has issued the R2P (Resolution to Protect) Even that may prove extremely difficult to do without "collateral damage". I have a feeling that the President has been co-erced in taking a military roll
    in this adventure. Pity.! The U.S.A. should have stayed OUT of it,
    lest it will later be pilloried by the Arabs who found some fault in the countries engament., something THEY should have wanting to tackle.
    Unfortunately they dislike each other more than anybody else.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  38. Ben from Boston

    Jack,

    What war or even what military action was ever successfully commanded by a committee? What is needed is another Eisenhower.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  39. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    A war run by committee? Yeah right! If people think the "plan" is cockeyed now, give the "committee" a chance.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  40. Jim

    Well, since the only person from the United States who has demonstrated ANY leadership whatsoever during this war is President, Hillary Clinton, perhaps a "committe" is the solution to this whole mess! I wonder, which community organizer suggested the creation of a committie?

    March 23, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
  41. Sean in Michigan

    This kind of stuff is the reason you have your ducks in a row before you act.
    But no, a committee is a terrible idea. You ever want to see how effective committees are, take a look at any government.

    March 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  42. Mr. D

    Looks like we have a "food fight" going on in Europe. Forming a commitee-sounds like our Congress in action. Gadhafi is probably laughing inside his bunker. Meanwhile Russia and China are sounding "high and mighty." If this is the "new world order", I don't think I want to be part of it.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  43. Susan

    Well, why not! war is a business, kind of like congress is. Why not run it like one? We can have committees, subcommittees, committee chairpersons, secretaries who secretly run things, vice-president of important stuff, keeper of the keys, bullet managers...well, you get my drift!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
  44. Jason C. Galvez

    Yes, it is a wonderful idea. The United States has proven its bravery, courage, and resolve time and time again. We have nothing left to prove. It makes since both financially and politically.

    Financially, it is time other countries help foot the bill when we are called on to stop a dictator from mass murdering his own people.

    Politically, it lets the world know we are not the only ones sick and tired of these murderous thugs committing genocide.

    We don't need any more PR. As Ann Landers used to say, "it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove it."

    Jason G.
    Manhattan, NY

    March 23, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  45. John D.

    Absolutely!! Hold a meeting, form a committee, anything to make it look like someone is doing something to justify transferring money from the taxpayers into corporate coffers.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  46. Margaret

    Fabulous idea. Let France do it for a change. Time for America to stay out of other countries that hate us anyway.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  47. Jason G.

    Yes, it is a wonderful idea. The United States has proven its bravery, courage, and resolve time and time again. We have nothing left to prove. It makes since both financially and politically.

    Financially, it is time other countries help foot the bill when we are called on to stop a dictator from mass murdering his own people.

    Politically, it lets the world know we are not the only ones sick and tired of these murderous thugs committing genocide.

    We don't need any more PR. As Ann Landers used to say, "it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove it."

    Jason G.
    Manhattan, NY

    P.S. I also like Wolf's idea of withholding Lybian funds to pay for our involvement in this fray.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  48. AndyBoston

    Sure. Great idea. France has such an outstanding record in military actions in the past couple of centuries. Let's listen to them on matters military.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  49. Wayne

    Jack,

    Rather than a "committee" how about a bureau? We can call it the "Bureau of Misplaced Priorities."

    March 23, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  50. Armand

    It is a great idea. This operation wouldn't have begun without France and the French have the most interest in Libya. US has little interest in being involved and it gives them an easy exit strategy to let others lead. If France wants to take the ball, let them have it. No one else does.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  51. frank dileo

    of course its not!!! the military although it may defend democracy is not one itself. there are decisions which must be made immediately and you just cant do that with a fractured committee. peoples lives depend on quick action and ive never seen a committee that was able to do that.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  52. Gigi Oregon

    I think it is a good Idea since the US doesn't have it's house in order, maybe some other country will do a better job. Maybe a country that isn't into debt "clear up to it's eyeballs" would be a good choice for the leadership role.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  53. Roger Kubler

    Yes Jack By all means put the French in charge. They have a long history of surrenders and defeats. In no time at all The Colonel will be drinking French wine while his body guards shop in Paris.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  54. Sarah

    I dont know if that would work. We seem to be close to pulling out and the French are becoming..well, the French to be honest. Why would Russia even speak out about this? They abstained from the vote when they could have voted against it.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  55. Peter Hooker

    If France suggested it, I would be against it automatically. When did France ever do anything that smelled anything like success, since Napoleon's time, as far as war efforts are concerned?

    March 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  56. Frankie

    Yes. This committee is called the United Nations and I am grateful that America is now supporting the vision of a strong United Nations. Please stop over-analyzing this no-fly zone, the immediate purpose is to save Libyan citizens from being slaughtered by a dictator.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  57. Jake from PA

    Sure Jack, a committee sounds like a wonderful idea. Let's put a committee in charge where people can talk for days and no actual action be taken. There's a reason why the military doesn't use committees.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  58. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville Texas

    Jack, you've got to wacth the French, they'll want to surrender to Libya next. Well that has been their history. We shouldn't have stuck our necks in there in the first place. And we are there in an illegal manner. For a president who "boasts doing thing right", he sure as hell tends to do the opposite.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  59. Chris

    How French! No wonder they haven't won a war in forever. Someone has to be in charge – whether in the newsroom or the battlefield.

    (I'm a retired US Military officer who studied at the French Army Staff School in France and worked at our Embassy in Paris. I can assure you this is a 'political' statement and did not originate from French Military officers.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  60. Martin Wielgus

    Wow! I worked with an American subsidiary of a French company for fifteen years, and this is so typical, not just of the French, but of the Europeans in general. This is a bad, bad, bad idea. Define the objective, put an American in charge, and Get 'r done.

    Martinsburg, WV

    March 23, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  61. Henry J. Mccabe

    A Committee!!!!!!!! You've got to be kidding. A camel is a horse designed by a committee. This won come out as good. We've done our part. We should tell the coalition they have 48 hrs to take over and then we're gone, whether they have somthing in place or not

    Hal

    March 23, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  62. John

    Let's see:

    wasn't it the French under Napoleon attached Russia?

    wasn't it the Frech who we bailed out in WWI?

    Wasn't it the French who insisted on the war reparations that set up Hitler's rise to power?

    Wasn't it the French (Le Grand Charles) who were angry that we prevented new war reparations after WWII?

    Then there was Dien Bein Phou.

    Obama better read some history and take charge!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  63. Karen Nakamura

    Absolutely. The question is, is the US going in as a bully oil mogul/occupier or to help democratically minded people set up a democracy. It's best if we sit equally at the table with everyone else and abide by the opinion of consensus.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  64. Sharen

    This sandbox is the result of a President who has ZERO military experience. Come on folks – when are we going to start requiring prior military service for the Office of Presidency? It's just common sense. Then again, we haven't seen much of that in quite some time now from any party....

    March 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  65. Phyllis S.

    Let's form a committee of intelligent military men and put Hillary Clinton in charge of all. She seems to be the only one in office that is where she's supposed to be.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  66. Carla

    It's ok with me, Jack - as long as the US is not on the committee and we get the heck out of Libya and the other places we don't belong.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  67. Chris from Elkton MD.

    A committee o run this "war" in Libya would be a fantastic idea, as long as the United States doesn't try and run it. Its about time that someone else step up to the challenge of trying to be World Peace Keeper! But if they need the muscle the US wont be too far behind!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  68. KingofthePaupers

    CNN Jack Cafferty: France wants committee to run war in Libya. Good idea?
    Jct: Under Khadafi, Libyans were burdened with no taxes, free health care, free education at home and abroad, lots to be rebelling against. I have no doubt the Committee will be able to "raise" them to the same standard of living as in the US. Har har har har har.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  69. Nina

    Jack

    Here we go again. I remember we went into Vietnam to help the French and once we did that, they promptly backed out leaving the US holding the proverbial “bag” Remember, history does repeat itself. First the UAE is MIA, now the collation is fracturing apart. So do we enter war… #4??? A no fly zone will Not oust Qaddafi from power. Qaddafi’s ground forces are superior to the poorly equipped freedom-fighters which means there will ultimately be “boots” on the ground and now the question would be…whose boots? Which country will ultimately send in ground troops? I vote NO American ground Military! Enough is enough!!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  70. Ed

    Jack, excluding every previous committee ever set up, how many have failed? The very idea a bunch of French bureaucrats can win a war is absurd.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  71. Wayne

    Jack,

    If it's a committee, how about calling it a "C.R.I.M.E." - Committee Rationalizing Infiltrating Moammar's Empire.

    Wayne
    Bailey's Crossroads, VA

    March 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  72. Robert Maddox, USN Retired

    First, why did we let the French pull our strings? What have we ever learned from the French, accept how to lose? NATO has to step forward and take the lead regardless of what others say. The Arab leagues that supported this U. N. resolution, needs to put up or shut up. They are just to worried about the backlash, but really do not want to defend the freedom that all humans seek. NATO has a chain of command, they need to use it, that is why we have NATO. People are dieing while the world including the U.S plays in politics.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  73. doug mohler

    Sounds like France has never read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. One leader at the top (with advisors, but one leader is the only effective way to approach conflict.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  74. Vefik Kench

    Good idea.
    French is in favor of running everything with commitees.
    Which is excellent way of screwing a war effort beswides anything else.

    Reminds me of a joke:
    What is a Camel ?
    It is a horse designed by a commitee.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  75. Emem

    Establishing a committee shows how disorganised this coalition forces are. A no-fly zone headed by a committe, will have no effect. Gadaffi stands a good chance of winning this battle because he has shown leadership, and those trying to remove him, lack a clear vision.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  76. Stewart Hearn

    Regarding the recommendation for a committee to run the war. Absolutely. It should be a select group of Senators and Reps. My reason for suggesting this is that it would cost billions of dollars, take forever and six months, the war would be over by then which is okay since any plan these dolts come up with wouldn't work anyway

    March 23, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  77. Ken in NC

    Look at how politicians are running our government and then try to convience me that committee members from different nations can run a war like campaign. Moammar Gadhafi would probably die of old age before a committee would come to a concensus on the campaing. You know how politicians work together.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  78. Tak

    No a good idea. President "George W." Sarkozy of France is having a problem with re-election next year. He is trying to prop up his approval rating in France by being a cowboy. Why should we engage in a civil war in Libya? Unlike Sadam, Gadafy is a appeaser of the West. Should we pull him down and replace by an Islamic alternative government, an Islam Republic of Libya?

    March 23, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  79. peter

    It has been said that a horse is a camel built by committee. Suddenly the GOP wants answers about military actions; funny they weren't so curious when furious George B. went to war because of his beliefs and false rumors. We need to finish the job and take Gadafhi out!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  80. Jackie from:Fresno CA

    No one to blame if things go wrong. No one is responsible if things go right. Sounds like a win – win to me!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  81. Donnie H.

    No. The U.N. has had more than a half century worth of experience dealing with these kind of problems. Will the committee handle the financing, logistics and take responsibility for civilian or other losses? We have started a humanitarian effort to help the people in Libya as well as try to settle the unrest in the area to try and quell the speculators desire to raise oil prices. Which is in the U.S.'s and worlds best interest. This is a civil war in Libya. We have leveled the playing field and now it is up to the Libyans and their neighbors to fight for their Democracy and change....

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  82. Tim

    If the "politicians would turn over the war to the warriors like Pres. Bush did in the first gulf war, this one would be over with by now. Politics don't win wars, they just prolong them

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  83. Tim

    It's just another attempt by France to be politically safe at all costs. I can't remember the last time France had a "good" idea. It was France's idea to warn Ghadafi when the U.S. tried to cut the head off of this snake more than 20 years ago. We should push France out of the equation altogether, since they have protected him in the past, and hand leadership to a country that has the least to gain from the whole situation, This would attempt to gain some form of political neutrality in the military decision making. Political and military decision making never go well together.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  84. Kelly Greene

    No, this was France's idea in the beginning. It was politicking all around. France just wants oil as usual and they will benefit from this the most this is why they convinced Hillary to convince obama to say yes to this crap. No one should ever trust the French when it comes to wars, didn't they abandon us in iraq when they realized people would die? The French are only good at retreating.. punks the whole lot! Also CNN stop telling Obama/what to do and outlining his agenda for him he is a grown man he knows what he is about. He talked to congressional leaders and now the tan man is having selective amnesia about it.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  85. Nancy, Tennessee

    A committee is always a good idea because a smaller group can accomplish more by coming into agreement quicker. If we get all countries on board with a committee then tensions will ease because everyone will feel like they are part of the oversight of this endeavor.
    This is new, but if other countries contribute resources then its a good thing.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  86. judith taylor

    Absolutely a good idea. I love my country and respect the presidency, but this jerk and the last jerk attacked countries who didn't first attack us. We are supposed to believe in democracy, but it is not democratic to believe you can speak for other countries. Plus Obama needs to be more thoughtful of the American people whom he's helping Bush bankrupt.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  87. Nurse Lisa in Shelton CT

    Sure France – compile a committee. Hoping the US will not be on the committee nor footing any part of the financial burden of their efforts. Was mad about last weeks magical announcement about Daffy's involvement in terrorist activities of the past – like we didn't have this intel for yrs. The public never gets the truth, just the bills.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  88. Tom Miller

    Since everyone seems to think having Arab backing is needed, then I don't see a better approach than the committee. If we had consulted with Congress before deploying the no-fly zone then we would not have needed the committee because the opposition forces would all be dead by now. There is a reason why the President is the Commander-in-Chief and not the Congress.

    Tom M.
    Delray Beach, FL

    March 23, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  89. Mark in Houston

    So, France wants a committee to run the war in Libya.

    My only concern is that the US Congress might be involved in some way, shape or form. If that happens....all is lost.

    If those bickering boneheads can be sidestepped...hey, we just might
    see something work for a change.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  90. Mike in Mississippi

    Everything is a bad idea, Jack. There are no solutions. They need dictators to function. They know no other way. But, where was Speaker Boehner (or however you spell his name) when the U.S. basically unilaterally launched a full scale war and occupation to follow on a country that didn't have anything to with anything?

    March 23, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  91. Abe

    That is not an excellent idea. We already have too many organizations. It will just lead to the already economic problems we face in this world today. We will see more bloodshed in this world. Why are we not making more organizations for world peace?

    March 23, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  92. jon hoffman

    Jack:
    Why does Committee almost rhyme with dither. Committe also means that US forces will be commanded by nations that don't care to much for us-The French among the others in the EU. I usually support Obama, yet this time he is foolish in not wanting to appear imperialistic. The timid cringe and make deals; those that "CAN DO" make the rules and lead their lessers. The US is the only democracy in the coalition. Only the US has a First Amendment. So we also "KNOW HOW".
    fn: US troops were under the UN command in Somalia; That turned out really good!
    Jon in California

    March 23, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  93. Jack Dempsey

    Jack, we shouldn't be there at all ! We keep removing dictaters from power and destablizing the region I only want their Oil . I don't care about them at all. Jack From Nice, Ca.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  94. anon

    If the strategy is anything other than get in, destroy all Libyan air forces and military vehicles where civilians are being slaughtered, and get out, then the coalition should disband. For people to even think about who gets oil from Libya at a time like this is beyond disgusting. I hate high gas prices, but I also can't stand those who look to profit because of others' suffering. Are they actually thinking, these women and children are being slaughtered, but hey, at least I can make a few million dollars by getting first dibs on their oil? If so, then we need to come up with a vaccine to protect the world from such ignorance. Ghadafi could be killed at any time with special forces, so no military action is needed to unseat him. Ghadafi is over confident and seems to think that he is immortal. He is a perfect target. He will soon realize that he is a spec and that his legacy is worthless.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  95. John Schilling, Chanbersburg, PA

    A committee???? What is this? A church council? Oh well. Maybe it's a good idea. We could abstain from every motion put forward. What happens if we don't have a quorum? They say that it was a committee that created the camel when they were trying to create a horse. 'nuff said

    March 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  96. Tony, NJ

    Committee? Your kidding..France? Your kidding me more. I am surprised they have not surrendered to Libya yet...Someone is always in charge of a committee. So who chairs the committee?

    March 23, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  97. judith taylor

    Absolutely a good idea. I love my country and respect the presidency, but this and the last president attacked countries who didn't attack us. We are supposed to believe in democracy, but it is not democratic to believe you can speak for other countries. Plus Obama needs to be more thoughtful of the American people whom he's helping Bush bankrupt.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  98. Sean, Pierre, SD

    When you say, "It's not just the French causing problems..." and then you state "Russia's defense minister yesterday called for a cease-fire in Libya," are you stating that steps towards peace only cause problems? How is a cease-fire a bad thing? Is this what a committee is needed to discuss, what is a peaceful move and a war-mongering move?

    Also, with Germany not agreeing with the way Libya is being handled, how are they causing trouble by protecting their citizens and military by not involving them in a dispute that they have nothing to do with?

    Did Libya do anything to Germany? I haven't seen anything to hint this.

    Did Libya do anything to the U.S.? I haven't heard anything to hint this either.

    Alliances only drag countries into conflicts in which they had nothing to do with originally.

    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    But why would we want peace, commerce, and honest friendship? We wouldn't have any real reasons to go kill and flex our military muscle then, because that solves everything all the time.

    So, no, a committee to run the "war" in Libya is a bad idea, just like it was stated, "...if a committee is running the war, no one has to take responsibility if things go to hell and everyone can take credit if they go well." We should know this already by the countless committees in our own Congress and how no one jumps at the opportunity to take responsibility when things go wrong.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  99. Renee Peoria,Ill

    Oh good. A committee. I'll hold my breath waiting for that to work out well for everyone concerned.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  100. fishingal Oregon

    A committee has to have a leader and hopefully parties who desire to work together a for a common goal.

    THis bunch can't agree on anything for more than a day or two?

    We did our part, now either go get Gadaffi without all the baloney from these other clowns or lets go home? We have paid the bulk of this so far and Europe are the one's who really need this mess cleaned up.

    Enough already!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  101. Chad from WI

    Geez, is our leadership dumb otr what¿ I think ignoring too many other of our own problems while trying to conceal our very serious financial issues to the rest of the world by appearing strong is laughable. A committee? Sounds like another money laundering scandal in the making.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  102. fishingal Oregon

    France and England wanted to get Gaddaffi and did a lot of tough talk b/4 this started. Why don't they put their troops in there for a clean up and bring this to a close? We have done enough I think.

    Talk is cheap!

    Committees suck!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  103. Dennes Barrett

    France needs some kind of leadership or steering committee when it comes to military action, but not us. Usually they need someone to fight for them since their rifles have all been dropped a time or two. We have the green light now so use it, and let the US make Kadafi want to join the French Foriegn Legion.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  104. CRAIG

    I have experienced "decisions" by committee. Listen to the upside, downside, likes, dislikes blah blah blah. At the end of the meeting, I make the call. Let the French discuss it into the ground. I say drop a 2000 pounder on Kadafi and lets, the USA, call it game over. Problem resolved. Then we can debate that for years. Poop or get off the pot!

    March 23, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  105. Barbara Teixeira - Las Vegas, NV

    A Committee? And next they will argue about who should be the chairman! Are there no leaders in this world? How about one leader who knows what the heck he (or she) is doing? Maybe we should let Hillary run the show. If this is what is going on concerning this mess in Libya, then how about the US pulls out of the "committee". We don't need to have our fingerprints on everything. And especially not this mess.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  106. AB

    Yes, I think that a NATO-led committee should run the war in Libya and hopefully the U.S. stays out of the affair altogether. Let the U.N. assume the control and the expense of this operation. We already have enough to deal with in terms of military occupations and do not need to assume full responsibility by occupying a third arab country.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  107. Joe Cerquitella

    Why not? We have hearings on all manner of things.
    This is a compelling issue which should be discussed. We know too little about the Middle East and Islam: and apparently US government if we are to beleive that sad poll of earlier in the week.

    March 23, 2011 at 5:59 pm |