Alright, my other post got buried because I pointed out how it was complete bullshit how you said "it's all America's fault", and how it was actually Europe which pushed us into it and forced our hand when they bit off more than they could chew, despite it being a campaign we didn't even want and were reluctant to be part of, so I'll just leave this here:
France and Britain Lead Military Push on Libya
PARIS — France and Britain continued to press their hawkish position on Libya on Friday, saying they intend to take the lead in enforcing a no-flight zone.
Both countries, the most adamant backers of the United Nations Security Council resolution to authorize military action in Libya, also pointed to the passage of the measure on Thursday as an important — if rare — example of European resolve.
"US is reluctant partner in Libya" – British MP
Barry Gardiner, a Labor member of the British Parliament, claimed the US is in the rearguard of the North African military campaign.
Gardiner pointed out that the Libyan war is not a US policy that is being carried out by the UK and France.
“America is absolutely in the rearguard of this action,” he said. “It really is almost repaying past debts, that the Americans have seen that they have to go with Britain on this one.”
“It’s actually very much the UK and France that have been in the lead – both politically and militarily, and the US has been a reluctant partner, I would say, rather than calling the shots,” Gardiner added.
Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.
We've only been at war for four days, but already serious divisions have appeared within the coalition leadership over how to prosecute the campaign. It is easy to understand Barack Obama's reluctance to play a lead role in a conflict he didn't want in the first place. This was one war that America didn't want.
Britain and France may have made all the running in drumming up international support for a no-fly zone. So if London and Paris are so keen to confront Gaddafi, why don't they run the campaign? After all, it was only at the end of last year that the British and French governments signed a new defence cooperation pact, whereby they agreed to cooperate more closely on military issues. The French even agreed to allow us the use of one of their aircraft carriers – assuming, that is, we had the aircraft to fly off it.
But unlike recent coalition campaigns in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is different. This time, Mr Obama and his generals can't wait for the opportunity to hand over responsibility for the mission to someone else. As one senior US officer told me yesterday: "The Europeans wanted the no-fly zone; so the Europeans can command the no-fly zone."
The only problem with this neat solution is that, as is so often the case when dealing with a major security issue, "the Europeans" just can't agree on how the command structure should be run.
And do I really need to give sources for Italy's fellow EU member-states closing their borders on it & failing to commit serious naval assets to help with the protection of it's sea borders?