President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday defended its decision to order U.S. attacks Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.
And, as a parade of the Pentagon in recent days, Obama has stressed that the U.S. military role will be also called "days, not weeks," the international command, that the U.S. is only a part.
The only problem: none of the countries in the international coalition can not yet agree on where or how the U.S. must provide the broad liability.
Urgency between White House officials to resolve the dispute in-depth command: every hour in the United States will meet again in the Middle East, military intervention, Congress intensify criticism that Obama went to war in Libya, before being his blessing, and not to define precisely what the final game. (Mo ', Obama sent a letter of formal notice to Congress that he had ordered the U.S. Army two days before the start of operations "to prevent a humanitarian disaster" in Libya and support the international coalition of UN Security Council resolution 1973.)
Next, an explanation of the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command after its initial phase, and if the army is concerned about mission creep.
What U.S. military task Libya?
The military mission in Libya is the implementation of Resolution 1973 which calls for forces to withdraw from the cities Gaddafi by the rebels, and the creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from attacks by Libya's Gaddafi, and that civilians are allowed access to food, water and other humanitarian supplies.
It is the U.S. army is trying to kill Gaddafi?
No, the U.S. military not allowed to kill Gaddafi, said Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command in a press conference in Stuttgart, Germany on Monday. Order of Ham is currently leading in the first phase of the international coalition efforts to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, the United Kingdom and France. Nor is the U.S. military currently coordinating with the rebel anti-Qaddafi or authorized to provide military support, "said Ham.
The main objective Ham said, is to protect civilians against attacks. "The military mission is very clear, honest. What is expected of us to do is to establish a no-fly zone to protect civilians, secure the withdrawal of ground forces scheme of Benghazi, "said Ham." What we look forward to the transition to the designation of siege "command in the next phase of operations.
How to reconcile a military coalition that could allow Qadhafi to power with the many calls for his dismissal?
On Monday, Obama responded to this emphasis on the language of Resolution 1973 which calls for the protection of civilians against attacks. The close military mission is different, "Obama said, in order to show the broad political landscape Gaddafi by a call that Obama has echoed repeatedly, with the main stakeholders Western diplomats as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The international community has other nonmilitary tools to achieve this goal, Obama said, as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, the international investigation of war crimes, and cutting off access to the Gaddafi regime financial assets abroad .
"First and foremost, I think it is very easy to place our military actions and our declared policy," Obama said in Chile on Monday. "Our military action in support of an international mandate of the Security Council UN specifically focused on the humanitarian threat posed by Qaddafi for his people."
Who is currently the head of the international military coalition?
U.S. African Command (AFRICOM), the regional U.S. military command to deal with the African continent, and its commander, Gen. Carter Ham, the initiative's first phase of what the Pentagon called "Operation Dawn Odyssey" to suppress the Libyan air defenses set up a no-fly zone over Libya.
Other early members of the international coalition to impose an air exclusion zone over Libya includes France and the United Kingdom, joined Monday Belgium and Canada.
Ham and other Pentagon officials have said that the U.S. is eager to turn the lead in the race for international coalition partners, but not yet control the next step has not been accepted.
What is really at issue in the dispute over who should control the next phase of the international mission in Libya?
In short, members of the international coalition is divided over whether the command of the international coalition should have a structure of NATO, or a non-NATO structure.
French, Turks and Germans reportedly opposed to the NATO structure-based, all for their own reasons. The Italians, Britain and the United States, among others, seem to think that NATO is better able to quickly take control of the task.
"There's only one problem. Every player has his point of view, sensitivity, priority," said a European military official on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the dispute on Monday. "You're weak, delicate, strong, opportunistic."
"The problem is that Italians are asking, is a NATO operation, but it is not clear to NATO's support," said Anthony Cordesman, a veteran defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It 's also clear that the French part of this operation began. And behind it is a fact that only the United States, which is a combination of satellite targeting and precision strike capabilities of cruise missiles, which are critical for command and control and general awareness of the situation. "
Why the French and other objects in a command structure of NATO as possible?
"There are technical and political ones," said Justin Vaisse, Brookings Institution and the central United States and Europe. Sarkozy has two central arguments, Vaisse said. "One, NATO is radioactive in the Arab world and is seen as a tool for U.S. imperialism Two, there is also the question is not between Turkey and Germany, [who have expressed reservations about the military mission in Libya], to prevent "international mission in Libya, because NATO is an organization of consent.
Turkey believes that the French president did not invite Sarkozky Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at the Paris summit in Libya on Saturday with other world leaders. (The insult that is perceived is "totally absurd," said a French official as saying the summit was open to any country wishing to implement the UN resolution on Libya, and France did not "send 200 invitations to all members UN. "A Turkish official, Ankara and we will gladly send a representative if they had been invited.)
Germany is reportedly interested in taking part in military operations in Libya, but may opt-out, but to accept NATO's participation in any other way.
NATO ambassadors met in Brussels on Monday to discuss the issue.
When the command is unlikely to solve the problem?
U.S. officials claim that is resolved soon - the "days, not weeks," as Deputy National Security Advisor Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes said Sunday.
"I would not put a date on the matter," General Carter Ham, said on Monday. "The first thing that needs to happen is to identify what this organization is. We were in the early planning of how to make the transition once the monitoring headquarters is located. This is not as simple as a handshake hands and say, "now in charge."
Is the concern the U.S. commander on mission creep?
"No, do not worry too much mission creep," Ham said after a pause on Monday. "I think the mission is clear, and go ahead and achieve military objectives in line with our mission."
