Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Defense Department spokesman JD Gordon who is joining us from our DC bureau today JD thanks for being here.
-- have we define this mission well enough.
Not I don't think we have defined mission well -- but I think we're in a real catch 22 as you said earlier.
We couldn't allow the slaughter of Libyans by Moammar -- By the same token we really don't.
-- game here we don't know where this is going to lead and frankly now that we've struck dolphin we see that.
What we struck him in the past he actually has.
Strokes back like when we had a had a rate again sitting 1986 under President Reagan.
Two years later he just -- -- back with pan am flight 103 which killed 270 people Lockerbie Scotland.
So I think that we had to be very wary of Qaddafi and and I think he has to go and we have to do more than just words to get him out now we've attacked them we really have to make sure he gets out of power this time -- JD Walton do we do next.
Well I think that the US should -- transition to -- support role we we had the the other technology in the superior firepower and a of course take the lead in knocking out cannot these air defense systems.
Which the British and French could have done but they they may have had a lot of casualties in doing that.
And so the US really was in the best position to to start the offensive but now that.
We -- -- significantly degraded Qaddafi is ability to low wage war on the protesters.
And the rebellion I think that we ought to -- that the French leader of the British -- whoever can.
I think NATO is not going to step up -- -- -- to do that because the Turks don't want it.
As I think that's going to be difficult but -- wherever we knew I think we ought to take warship a supporting role this point how little we must be sure to get Qaddafi out of power because.
He probably will strike us again he has chemical weapons and even though he may not be able harm us on the battlefield.
We will be putting troops there he can hit us with terrorism.
And JD I guess that gets to the third point of -- three things.
The US must do next that we have on the screen now pushing allies and partners to -- the cost finishing the job.
And then you'll saying we need to bolster transportation security checks worldwide because you think there's a -- very real.
Of terrorist acts carried -- against our interest because of this.
That's actually right we have to -- step up security checks worldwide.
Not just for rather than a commercial aviation sector but for shipping.
For rails because you have to remember Qaddafi is sort of an unhinged dictator and he didn't get mad in 1986 C uneven.
He was able to have to Libyan agents place a bomb on flight pan am 103.
And then next thing you know we lost 270 people so I think Qaddafi will be up to -- old tricks.
So we need to be on the lookout for that we need to -- bolster security for all all types of our transportation.
Systems worldwide really and I think you US citizens of European citizens of -- French and British are really at risk worldwide right now.
And JD as -- was speaking actually we we getting a bulletin coming across from the Associated Press saying that France's prime minister.
Has said that -- that country France has already received unspecified.
Threats -- to taking role in this allied military campaign.
-- -- films saying that this action quote can have.
Domestic repercussion so that it this is something that every one of us should be aware all of that we get involved in these things.
There can be as we sores he said -- flight one -- three -- certainly can be a blow -- That's absolutely correct that's something we have to be on the alert for and the sooner Qaddafi goes the better will be for all of us.
Common -- Gaddafi goes the better it will be for all of us.
I think from a moral standpoint yes absolutely and I you know I'm not surprised about the French the French have one million lost and suddenly.
In France for them to take a leading role -- this automatic you can't create an enormous amount of problems.
Internally it's so this is this is a difficult position that they have to make but I don't think.
That Europe can get away without meeting and this.
Billy do you do you agree that Qaddafi has the the will certainly hard to disagree -- but does he have the ability.
To coordinate terrorist attacks -- against the US and European nations and a small scale I would say probably.
But one thing about -- it's very interest thing in the past he has responded to strong leadership.
In 2003 abandon his nuclear weapons program I think we lacked strong leadership it looked like we weren't gonna do anything and here we are now doing it.
And I think President Obama has little to blame on that for allowing this to fester for over it and -- -- -- not point did -- -- too late in this.
Not actually I think we probably shouldn't have participated in the in the strikes at all I -- I had a column a few weeks ago.
Five reasons not to strike Libya and I and I raise a number of points saying this could be an unending commitment.
We're -- stretched very thin we have 97000.
Troops in Afghanistan.
Troops in Iraq but he how much more of responsibilities as the United States -- -- -- I think that the US should be pushing our allies more but.
Who knows where this is going to lead right now.
But they're getting back to the point just -- -- -- I do agree that Qaddafi had been.
Better behaved since 2003 since he saw what happened to fellow dictator Saddam Hussein.
With the US went after with a coalition and Saddam was -- by his own people so that convinced Qaddafi to give up his nuclear program so I think we did have success with with Qaddafi from 2003 on.
This latest round with his his suppression of the revolt and a potential catastrophe as far as humanitarian.
Disaster -- With his strikes against his people is something that.
We just couldn't allow but I think that the US really should have lean on our allies to do more of the work.
That JD now that we are involved now that there is a coalition action.
Should the gold should the states in gold being.
To get rid of -- I mean it seems a little pointless to have an open ended.
Protect the civilians because the civilians are always gonna need protection if you leave -- -- -- That's exactly right and that's what I believe I believe that the -- mission should be to to take Qaddafi out.
Once you've already attacked a guy who's already proven that he can launch terrorist attacks then you have to take him out.
You can't just say well we're just gonna have this no fly zone.
We're gonna destroy Qaddafi is military but we're just gonna leave -- power because he he's an unhinged.
-- type of -- I think that we have to be realistic and that may look on paper just to say well we're just going to protect the civilians were gonna destroy his ability to.
Have air attacks on and we'll have that we'll have there's no fly zone but we have to realize he may come after a city where are likely well.
Filter by section