Shouldn't the administration be giving proper credit to "Boots on the Ground" in Libya?
Asked by
josie (
30934
)
April 1st, 2011
The president and his ministers seem to be getting a lot of gratification from saying that there are no “boots on the ground” in Libya.
I know what they are trying to say-that mechanized divisions of Americans are not going to roll into Tripoli.
But the truth is, there ARE brave men on the ground pointing laser designators at targets for all the smart bombs and missiles that come off of our ships and planes. They are not civilians. They are SEALs or Delta. It is not like it is a secret. Even if Americans don’t think about it much, you can bet Col. Gadhafi knows they are there and would love find them. I probably know a couple of them and I think it would be nice if somebody would mention them. It is a lonely and scary job.
Shouldn’t the CINC and the SecDef be giving credit where credit is due?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
21 Answers
They are treated like spies if they are caught. And some of them are Special Forces, or CIA.
It’s not just this administration; they all do the same thing. If they don’t “acknowledge” a thing to be true, then they can pretend that it isn’t true.
They are there on the ground, and they wear boots. Plus I learned something new today about our Presidents ability to issue a ”secret finding” to command covert operations as deemed necessary.
Apparently the British have had quite a few special forces there for some time setting the table for enforcing this no fly zone.
If you want the President to declare “credit” for CIA boots on the ground… then he’s going to have to add a few hundred countries to the list, and a retroactive “crediting” for CIA agents of the past.
My money would say there have been CIA agents and possibly special forces in Libya since Obama was in grade school.
Their presence is secret, and they do not want to be acknowledged.
@tedd
You are seriously underestimating their ubiquity.
SEALS and Deltas aren’t “boots”; if you equated them to army infantry, they would probably set you straight.
@CaptainHarley I just want to give credit for using the word ubiquity. I haven’t seen that since high school vocab, lol.
Exposing an active CIA agent would be treasonous. It would be a deliberate act against US interests and endanger US operatives and their foreign contacts. What kind of administration would do such a thing?
@ everybody
Always appreciate your responses. Lurve to you all.
I confess that I am not doing a good job of making a point.
My point is, who are they trying to fool with all of this talk that is designed to give the impression that the US is “only kinda sort of involved” in Libya. It just isn’t true. So let’s say it and get it over with. Who actually believes the president when he talks this way?
@josie
We can tell when Obama lies… his lips are moving.
@tedd
LOL! Thanks. I try to fit the right word in the right place, and that sounded right at the time. : )
@josie. Snipe hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Nuff said.
@Dr_Dredd
“Politician?” OMG! Booooooooooooo! Hisssssssss! ; )
We have obviously had CIA operatives in Libya for years, and there are additional “assets” there now to help with the close air support as well as to figure out just who we are really dealing with when we talk of the Libyan Opposition. The president would be a damned fool not to do that, and would be an even bigger fool to talk in detail about what he’s doing. Rest assured that MI-6 is there in greater numbers than the CIA and for exactly the same reasons.
I have a couple of friends there now. If I hadn’t been retired with a disability, I probably would be there with them. At first I was kinda down that I wasn’t, and then I was thankful I wasn’t. : ))
LOL! You meet the nicest people on a Blackhawk! : )
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
