The Washington Post today reports that bombing Libya has cost more than half a billion dollars thus far.

No end in sight, of course, because we and our NATO allies aren't sure what the hell the end will look like.


The military intervention in Libya has cost the United States “about $550 million” in extra spending so far, a Defense Department spokeswoman said Tuesday, providing the first official estimate of the mission’s price tag.

Future costs involved in maintaining a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone in Libya and protecting civilians remain “highly uncertain,” said the spokeswoman, Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler.

When we put boots on the ground, I'll agree with you.

They told me if I voted for John McCain, I'd get a President who dropped bombs on nations that posed America no threat, ignored the Constitutional requirements of war and didn't even have an exit strategy. They were right.

Juan Cole again, addressing the Left on Libya.



I must say I don't get this fretting about an exit strategy. The US's military action here is essentially firing cruise missiles. Exit strategy: stop firing cruise missiles.

If McCain had been elected president, your stupid ass would likely be in either Iran or Syria right now. Which, come to think of it, would be almost worth it.

If only it were as simple as that.

Today we're getting news reports that President Obama -- pressured by the French and some of his own advisers -- is considering whether to send weapons to the Libyan rebels, because even with air support, they're not winning. If we send weapons, White House sources say, we'll have to send an unknown number of "military advisers" for an indefinite period to teach the rebels how to use the weapons.

Step one: Air strikes against Libya that Obama said would "last days, not weeks." That was two weeks ago and counting.

Step two: Not satisfied with air strikes, we plan to send in U.S. weapons and military. Members of the U.S. armed forces will be standing there on the sand against Qadaffi.

Meanwhile, we don't know who the hell these rebels are -- some of them have been identified by U.S. intelligence as having ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists -- and we don't know what sort of a country they would run, whether it would be any better on human rights and democracy than the current regime -- and we're not sure how far we'll personally go to topple Qadaffi.

Stephen, this is why -- before you drop the first friggin' bomb -- you need to have an end goal and an exit strategy. Obama let himself get talked into a potential quagmire.

Giggety.

Just think, his first term in the Senate would have just ended a couple months ago. The night Hillary was defeated, Obama promised that this was the moment when the rise of the seas began to slow and the planet began to heal.

Ask yourself, just how could such a brilliant community organizer ever let himself be talked into anything he didn't want to be involved in. Look at the way he stood up to Iran, North Korea, Republicans... He's still playing three-dimensional chess, don't you worry about potential quagmires.

You slipped from "is considering" to "we plan to" there. There may be no quagmire. If there is, it'll be because Obama doesn't stick to his original commitment. I'd agree that that would be unwise, and that the US shouldn't send in advisers. But that's a separate matter from whether the US should have played their role in a UN authorised action in the first place. I agree with Cole in as much as I'm weary of 'the left' getting all absolutist about the issue of foreign military intervention.



I think that's a better reason to be sceptical of the value of involvement here. But it isn't simple issue, unfortunately. Saying the US shouldn't get involved in any military action unless it's against someone who directly attacked you is too simple an approach, in my view.

Jon Stewart is on your side.

America at Not-War.

He should probably try to just re-stabilize relations with Libya the way BushJr and Cheney did: get some oil billionaire buddies to do it for him.