Are we going to train child soldiers? Libyan Prime Minister Fayez Serraj welcomed the announcement saying:

"We’re not talking about international intervention," he said. "We’re talking about international assistance and training, equipping our troops and training our youth."

Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, had this to say:

[Earnest] said the decision to arm the new government marked "the beginning of a process, not the end of it."

The Pentagon spokesman's comment is even more disheartening:

The Pentagon recently sent special operations teams to Libya to gather intelligence and find potential partners to fight the militants, Peter Cook, the Pentagon spokesman, said Monday.

“This small presence of U.S. forces has been trying to identify players on the ground and trying to find out exactly what their motives are,” Cook said. “And that's to give us a better picture of what's happening there, because we don't have a great picture.”

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. The groups in Libya are fighting each other and not aligned in the fight against ISIS. The Guardian's reporter in Libya says the challenge will be keeping U.S. arms from being used in Libyan civil wars instead of the fight against ISIS. This article makes the same point -- "The Libyan unity government not yet in a position to co-ordinate effective military response to Islamic State."

A narrow focus on military intervention, such as the loosening of the UN arms embargo proposed by anonymous US government officials cited by AFP on 13 May 2016, would probably serve to inject renewed energy into Libya's civil war rather than galvanise its combatants into unified action against the Islamic State. In this context, extensive international diplomatic engagement will be required to incentivise Libya's factions to unite behind the GNA and give it the legitimacy to address the broader issues fuelling instability and insecurity that allow the Islamic State and groups with a similar ideology to thrive.