Mike Mullen: U.S. Mission In Libya 'Limited', But No End In Sight

WASHINGTON -- Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen made the rounds of the morning talk shows on Sunday, and one of the main messages that emerged on Libya is that, right now, there just aren't many answers: how long the U.S. will stay involved, how long a no-fly zone will stay in place, and how much capacity the U.S. military has to sustain another conflict.

On "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pointed out to Mullen that with the U.S. at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were already concerns that America's armed forces were stretched too thin. "How can you take on a third operation?" asked Wallace. "Is something going to have to give?"

Mullen stressed that, at this point, the mission in Libya remains very "limited," and therefore, the U.S. military has been able to carry it out effectively.

"There is no one that understands better than I the stress and strain that we've been under for a long time in our 10th year of war both in Iraq and Afghanistan," replied Mullen. "That said, we are within our capability and capacity to be able to execute this mission. It is, as has been the direction given to me, it is limited, very focused and in that regard we are more than able -- as has been shown in the last 24 hours -- to carry it out and carry it out effectively."

But Mullen's answers illustrate how quickly the mission is moving, and how many questions remain unanswered.

When asked by Wallace how long America will remain involved in Libya, Mullen responded, "I don't have an exact date in mind, and I haven't been given a date by the president where U.S. military participation here would end."

When asked whether, at some point, forces will be ordered to take out Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, Mullen said, "I wouldn't speculate what the mission might be in the future."

On ABC's "This Week," host Christiane Amanpour asked Mullen whether the current situation could up in a 12-year no-fly zone with a strongman in power, similar to what happened in Iraq. "Well, again, I think circumstances drive where this will go in the future," said Mullen. "I wouldn't speculate in terms of length at this point in time."

This ambiguity was underscored by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, a key player in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. On CNN's "State of the Union," he said that the administration needed to outline its long-term goals in Libya.

"My assumption would be that Admiral Mullen and the president and the secretary of state are working this issue very hard, but we haven't heard that articulated," he said.

Comments

[WoolStreet]

09:45 PM on 03/21/2011

Israel - recipient of trillions in american taxpaer dollars.

Israel is why we won't have social security

[Patricia013]

05:28 PM on 03/21/2011

Tell me all you politicians how come we aren't BROKE now??? Or are we only broke when it comes to picking the bones of the middle class, the elderly, the disabled and the poor! You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

[treadway123]

09:15 PM on 03/21/2011

Why don't u ask that question to your Republican freinds. Seems to me they are the ones who wouldn't allow the middle class/poor a tax cut unless their Billionair/Millionairs an Koch Bro's/corperations their Billions in tax breaks first!

[frankiebarbella]

04:16 PM on 03/21/2011

So this administration sure looks a lot like previous ones. I suspect we are going to be there a while.

[jokerdanny]

03:40 PM on 03/21/2011

a strategy similar to this might have been preferrable in afghanistan after 9-11....declare war, and then just f**k with them for 10 - 15 years; bomb & missle strike at our discretion, no time-table, no boots on the ground, give them $0...give their gov't 0 support...until they decide not to back or harbour our enemies...heck you could even stop bombing for a year or two but not declare a cease-fire or an end to hostilities...then bomb them again for a while...it's cheaper, and it's what we do best, and it costs fewer lives....go with your strengths....and come to think of it, it's actually kadafi's strategy isn't it?....and it works as long as you're the toughest kid on the block...just don't go after civilians, but i'll bet we have the technology to drop a smart bomb on the afghan president's residence once a year....and after 5 years of not harboring or helping our enemies, then we sign the peace treaty....well that's not my typical lib post now is it...and further it's better than kadafi's strategy because we wouldn't have our soldiers on the ground raping and murdering civilians

[nixrox04]

03:16 PM on 03/21/2011

Candy C asked Mullin about civilian casualties and part of the response was the US was not aware of any civilian casualities of "consequence".
So if innocent civilians uncle Omar, his wife and maybe another relative were blown to bits, their
lives were not of consequence, just collateral damage?

[treadway123]

09:20 PM on 03/21/2011

Civilian Casualities is not the same as saying Collateral damage! Two difinitions guy!

[dancingstu]

02:23 PM on 03/21/2011

So the deficit has been fixed and every American has a job and can pay the taxes needed to support this third war, of course.  Hooray!
 
Even if the budget was balanced and we weren't in the worst unemployment situation in years, we still wouldn't have the right to play world policeman.

[Patricia013]

05:31 PM on 03/21/2011

dancingstu - we're never broke when it comes to war or when it comes to enriching the lives of the rich or pandering to the huge corporations. We're only broke when it comes to picking the bones of the middle class, the elderly, the disabled and the poor! Dontcha know that???? These "politicians" are despicable!

[treadway123]

09:21 PM on 03/21/2011

So now Dollar amount is worth more than lifes? I wonder what the Bible has to say about that?

[dancingstu]

09:34 AM on 03/22/2011

Indeed, it appears that even some average people now believe that war is peace and killing is the way to save lives.  The power of propaganda is amazing.

[Bat Wrangler]

01:52 PM on 03/21/2011

By "limited" Admiral Mullen meant that bombing was limited to Libya...for now. A wider war could be coming, once the neocons decide where to target next and Fox News begins showing footage of further humanitarian crisis.

[Vomit The Blue Pill]

12:30 PM on 03/21/2011

Another war....UGH!!

[liberalandloveit]

03:48 PM on 03/21/2011

...but teachers are bankrupting us.

[frankiebarbella]

09:18 AM on 03/21/2011

Looks like this President is similar to the last. Another military intervention aboard, what fun!

VOTE Libertarian!

[liberalandloveit]

03:50 PM on 03/21/2011

Yeah! Vote anarchy!

[frankiebarbella]

03:58 PM on 03/21/2011

Anarchy = a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

I am for that!!!

[bmike]

09:02 AM on 03/21/2011

Money to fight for other countries but American unemployed is told to EAT HAY.

[bmike]

08:57 AM on 03/21/2011

Since these are the exact same actions used against Iraq expect same results. if we ever leave we will be leaving people vulnerable and we can't leave them like that. Its like once you start fighting for me I don't want you to ever stop. Talking heads creating fog on the brain making it hard to see past your nose. Blitz says they are waiting for arms and other help and only he knows that.He should add they also want money because man can not live on guns alone.

[treadway123]

09:22 PM on 03/21/2011

Yep just like iraq! NO! NO LIE to go to war on! No boots on the ground! No Shock an Awe! No admendment to committ Torture!

[Social Construct]

08:43 AM on 03/21/2011

Oil, guns and money .... I think Warren Zevon would approve of my small rewrite. Even if this lunacy ends well put me on the record as firmly against it.

[holyghostie]

07:34 AM on 03/21/2011

Mike Mullen and Sec. Gates gave President Obama cover so as not to put our forces into Libya for the last month....I wish the President had taken them up on the offer.

The Muslims and Europeans should have handled this themselves if it was such a big problem.
Of course how they square allowing Algeria, Syria and Bahrain to brutally supress protests while only picking on Libiya is going to require Olympic Quality gymnastics moves.

[grf67]

06:20 AM on 03/21/2011

How can we continue to be so stupid that we are going into another conflict without a clear endgame or a clear exit strategy? Libya does not threaten the US. Why do we continue to have the money to fight conflicts and invade other countries but not enough to solve hunger and medical care in the US?

[earto44]

06:49 AM on 03/21/2011

You must have missed that part where President Obama was asked day's ago to start some sort of defense, with hitting airfields, and anti-aircraft stations. Then you missed the part where President Obama said "We Can't" Not until this is a UN backed situation, where we can set the table then hand it off. Then you must have missed the part where President Obama said other middle east countries need to participate or we can't help. And then, the other Middle East countries publicly entered with support, and then the UN decided they would take the ball and run with it once the "no fly zone" was under control. So, Let me help you get caught up with the rest of the Democrats. President Obama has a clear endgame. We set the table, and then we exit. It's up to the Middle East to deal with this one.