Gates: U.S. to hand off Libya lead in "days"
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition - probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO - "in a matter of days."
In his first public remarks since the start of the bombings, Gates said President Barack Obama felt very strongly about limiting America's role in the operation, adding that the president is "more aware than almost anybody of the stress on the military."
Meanwhile, several news outlets are reporting that the Libyan military has offered an immediate ceasefire that was allegedly promptly ignored. It is unclear still whom exactly offered the ceasefire, but there have been several reports of ceasefires, and then immediate resumption of hostilities, since the coalition bombing began.
"Our view at this point...is that it isn't true, or has been immediately violated," White House National Security Adviser Tom Donilon told reporters, according to Reuters.
Regardless of the alleged ceasefire call, the U.S. appears ready to press forward with plans to involve itself in Libya in a secondary role.
Mullen: Qaddafi's future "difficult to know"
U.S. fires missiles on Libyan air defenses
Video: U.S., British ships launch Operation Odyssey Dawn
"We agreed to use our unique capabilities and the breadth of those capabilities at the front of this process, and then we expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others," Gates told reporters traveling with him to Russia. "We will continue to support the coalition, we will be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role."
The two key possibilities, he said, are a combined British-French command or the use of a NATO command. He acknowledged there is "some sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella."
Gates' comments came as American ships and aircraft continued to pound Libya, taking out key radar, communications and surface-to-air missile sites along its Mediterranean coast. Even as his military was under siege, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi vowed to endure through a long war against what he called colonial crusader aggression by the international coalition.
The Pentagon chief had cautioned early on about getting involved in Libya's civil war, telling Congress that taking out Libya's air defenses was tantamount to war. Others have worried that the mission could put the U.S. on a path to deeper military involvement in yet another Muslim country - even as nearly 150,000 troops continue to battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gates said that in the discussions leading up to the launch of attacks, he tried to provide "a realistic appreciation" of the complexities involved in setting up a no-fly zone, and noted it would require an attack on Libya - which is what happened.
Asked about working with the rebels, and whether the coalition knows enough about them to forge a partnership, Gates said Libyans must ultimately resolve matters themselves - though it remains to be seen what additional outside help will be provided.
Still, he added, "We certainly know a lot about Qaddafi, and that's good enough for me."
Qaddafi fires back with promise of "a long war"
Crisis in Libya: Latest developments
Complete coverage; Anger in the Arab World
Asked if the bombings should target Qaddafi, Gates said the coalition should stick to the objectives in the U.N. Security Council resolution, and adding new ones would create a problem. "It is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve," he added.
He said most nations want to see Libya remain a unified state.
"Having states in the region begin to break up because of internal differences, I think, is a formula for real instability in the future."
The military assault on Libya began Saturday with the launch of about 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. and British ships, followed by a coordinated air assault by U.S. warplanes - including Air Force B-2 stealth bombers and Marine attack jets in the pre-dawn hours.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, described the campaign's aims as "limited," saying it "isn't about seeing him (Qaddafi) go."
Qaddafi has vowed to fight on, promising a "long war," and his troops have lashed back, bombarding the rebel-held city of Misrata with artillery and tanks on Sunday, the opposition reported.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Iran hangs alleged U.S., Israeli spies
- Photos of the Week 21 Photos
- North Korea fires short-range missiles for second day
- Two imprisoned over killing Malcolm X's grandson
- Assad: Syria transition talks are internal matter
- S. Korea: N. Korea launches short-range missiles
- Afghanistan to ask India for military aid
- Drone technology myths, facts and future feats
Obama will pay for this aggression against the Libyan people.
Democrats and Neocon Republicans thugs are woven from the same cloth,voting for them again you got to be a real loser and total ignorant,And an embarrassment to man kind.
I think the idea is that you are suppose to promptly ignore any ceasfire you offer, when outside countries are bombing you and all around engaged in war crime activity in your country.
That's the way it's suppose to work anyway. Except for the fact that a Constitutional guarantee of free press in America is suppose to be free of American propaganda on behalf of the U.S. government -- propoganda that is so outrageous in it's claims that it should be seen as a much bigger threat to American democracy and our "common defence".
Both of which have nothing to do with the U.S. once again violating international law bombing and killing more middle eastern people in Libya.
Clearly there is no Christian God that would allow this, and the U.S. Constitution does not permit this, and international law does not permit this.
So *** are you doing, and will you at least promise to not run for re-election in 2012? TWELVE YEARS going on SIXTEEN of Bush is WAY TOO FREAKING MUCH.
I think the idea is that you are suppose to promptly ignore any ceasfire you offer, when outside countries are bombing you and all around engaged in war crime activity in your country.
That's the way it's suppose to work anyway.
Say what you mean and back up what you say with what you do is the way it is supposed to work
The two key possibilities, he said, are a combined British-French command or the use of a NATO command. He acknowledged there is "some sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella."
The Libyan rebels have clearly asked for outside assistance. These same rebels appear willing to place their lives and fortunes at risk in the pursuit of freedom. Apparently not so with the Arab League. They refrain in participating in what they asked for and indeed criticize the implementation of exactly what they asked for. Military intervention, necessarily, results in loss of life. That's the nature of such action. Since the Arab League asks for international intervention but will not support such intervention and indeed criticizes intervention when granted, in my opinion, they have said our intervention is not really wanted. The Libyan rebels have not, yet, been guilty of such double mindedness. If our intervention is no longer supported by the Arabic Community, as represented by the Arab League, then I feel we must reassess our position. For us to support a small group of rebels within an Arabic Nation, without the TRUE support of the Arabic Community of Nations, is very different from us doing so with their support. Under the current conditions I think we must balance the desires of a very small minority, the Libyan rebels, against the apparent desires of the Arabic majority and withdraw our support. We should tell the Libyan rebels, "Sorry we are willing to support you in your attempt to gain freedom but not over the objections of your Arabic brothers. If you wish our continued support you must first convince them to lend you their active support.". We should then withdraw all military forces until such time as we have a clear mandate form the Arabic Community as a whole. If the Arabic World is not willing to actively support this rebellion then we do not have the right to do so. I maintain my right to intervention, through prayer and verbal intervention on behalf of anyone who desires freedom. I would withhold any other worldly intervention in a situation where worldly powers representing the Arabic people as a whole, through their actions as opposed to their words, refuse to support such worldly intervention.
il est imp?ratif de s'en tenir ? la r?solution de du conseil de s?curit? des nations unies,
il est aussi imp?ratif de veiller ? la s?curit? de la population, ?viter ? tout prix de cibler les endroits peupl?s par les civils,
le but de l'op?ration ?tait de prot?ger le peuple Libyen,
mettre fin aux massacres perp?tr?s par Khadafi,
cette intervention ne doit en aucun cas devenir une "colonisation"
...........
it is imperative to stick to the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations,
it is also imperative to ensure the safety of the population, avoid at all costs to target areas populated by civilians,
The aim of the operation was to protect the people of Libya,
stop the massacres perpetrated by Gaddafi
This intervention must never become a "colonization"
"au revoir"
The community organizer should be put on trial for deliberate war crimes against humanity.
This aggression must not go unpunished America,otherwise your children pay the price for their governments deeds.
Take back your country from these lying,swindling,thugs by voting for Ron Paul and no one else.
Say it once, and say it twice, that you are not going to stand by ideally and let your corrupt government kill innocent people around the world.
Qaddafi is not Saddam,he is resourceful,he can hit you in America or else where,he has done it before, he will do it again,And innocent people will die again,and the never ending cycle of American violence will carry on.
You are betting on the dying breed of horse name Obama Brian...
Traitors must be confronted and executed,and we would do the same in the western world.
Their is clearly a hidden agenda of removing Qaddafi"...
But he is not going no where,his people love him,good or bad,Satanic forces want his fine oil,so they are doing every thing to topple him in futility.
We'll be out of all three places in no time.
---------------------------------------------
HECK YA. Thats what I want to see. Some other countries of the world taking a lead role in the policing duties. AWESOME...
to attack. Having no earthly idea of who or what the "rebels" are, we
are sure that they are our friends all of a sudden. Another money pit for
our gov. to pour money into. And yes, after another few billion, will will hand over the lead.., unless we change our mind.
It's an Arab country why aren't the Arabs conducting these operations?
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, these folks wouldn't understand the
issues better than us and how to deal with it?
I thought the french and brits were taking the lead. Plus, where is the story that obama completely bypassed congress on this decision? Plus where is the story that there is only ONE british submarine and the rest are US ships. There has been great effort made to make this appear that we are simply part of a coalition with everyone on board but what is coming out in dribs and drabs is very different. The arab league now has doubts, the US constitution has been completely discarded in favor of the UN, and the US is the biggest dog in this fight contrary to what we are being told.