Of War, We Don't Speak Anymore

About a month ago, I wrote:

So in the somewhat likely event that this drags on longer than anticipated, and the major players (France, Britain) in our coalition grow uneasy and want to back off, you know who won't hesitate to fill that void.

Via Atrios, we now have not-at-all predictable news that the continued mission is proving a strain on NATO resources:

Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.

The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts among some officials about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi hangs on to power for several more months. 

[...] 

But, they said, the current bombing rate by the participating nations is not sustainable. “The reason we need more capability isn’t because we aren’t hitting what we see — it’s so that we can sustain the ability to do so. One problem is flight time, the other is munitions,” said another official, one of several who were not authorized to discuss the issue on the record.

European arsenals of laser-guided bombs, the NATO weapon of choice in the Libyan campaign, have been quickly depleted, officials said. Although the United States has significant stockpiles, its munitions do not fit on the British- and French-made planes that have flown the bulk of the missions.

And I also said:

So what is the plan exactly? We bomb the fuck out of their military and defensive infrastructure, declare mission accomplished and then just walk away? What happens when Qaddafi doesn't go peacefully, and we decide it's time for boots on the ground? Or better yet - what happens when we deem Qaddafi a Dangerous Lunatic that Must Be Stopped and that it's time for regime change?

Via Glenn Greenwald, we now also learn that regime change is now the stated goal of the mission: 

The bombing continues until Gaddafi goes

Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. . . . However, so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. For that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good .

Funny how that happens, the way these things unfold so predictably. But remember - we are broke. We need to focus less on "war" kinetic military action and more on tax cuts for the rich to get us out of this fiscal mess.