The alliance said Tuesday that airstrikes struck [a number of military targets] a day earlier near Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte.
NATO also says it struck six tanks and two armored fighting vehicles in Sabha in the southern desert.
Of course, just when we got non-America NATO to take the lead in fighting a war (Libya), one of the two pillars of that European leadership is crumbling:
Britain recently announced their first round of personnel cuts in the military. The Royal Air Force (RAF) cut 930 personnel and the army 920. There will be four more rounds of cuts that will eventually reduce military strength by 22,000. This is an 11.5 percent reduction of the current force of 191,000.
The biggest cuts will occur in the army, which will lose 16 percent of their personnel. Thus by the end of the decade the army will be reduced to 84,000 troops. The British Army has not been that small since 1900.
And it isn't just a question of troop numbers and equipment.
The French have their own problems.
If these two countries can't handle the leadership role and we don't want it, who do we beg to lead? My worries of getting what we wish are probably way overblown.
UPDATE: If leading from behind is our strategy, we should be aware that NATO seems like it is barely ready to fight the major combat operations phase against a tiny enemy and when that is over simply wants to declare "mission accomplished" and go home. NATO doesn't do stability ops, it seems:
NATO, which has been bogged down for nearly 10 years in Afghanistan and more than 12 in Kosovo, is desperately seeking a mission it can end, quickly, cleanly and for good.
So at the top levels of the military alliance there is great eagerness to wrap up the Libyan air campaign as soon as possible, and great reluctance to get involved in nation-building or policing now that the country's former leader, Moammar Gadhafi, has fallen from power.
Well, NATO isn't interested unless we take the lead and isn't interested if there could be significant casualties. If NATO isn't interested in Libya, which is right on their doorstep and which could flood Europe with refugees if it goes belly up, where can non-America NATO lead?
UPDATE: Keep in mind that NATO's distaste for putting buts on the ground to stabilize Libya comes even as NATO worries that Islamists could exploit the lack of stability:
Libya is in danger of falling into the hands of Islamic extremists if a stable government is not rapidly established, Nato’s secretary-general warned last night.
Not a major worry, he said, but a worry. Perhaps if we say the magic word, "please," Europe will help.
