War On Libya - Here We Are Again

Remove all ads!

Oh, no! I hope it's not, gasp, the UN. That would be a cause for a mass suicide at FOX News. Brent Hume and Bill Krystal would probably break-down together on the air. I hope they have a big bottle of Jack to see them through the "ordeal," if that's the case. Personally, since we have a war on 2 fronts, and are now in the process of opening a three-way [is that all you ever think about is sex? ], in the same region, it sounds pretty reasonable to me.

As for Operation Odyssey Dawn, I completely agree. I have to admit, I like seeing Gadhafi get a big payback for all the grief he has caused American families [and others], with the ordering of the Pam Am bombing over Scotland. IMO, this is what the war in Iraq should have been, a part of a national uprising within the nation itself, combined with international support.

But I was more curious what the other members on SP thought as well. And, I will wait for Ragusa's comments to the contrary - He's far less emotional about these tyrannical bastards in the ME than I am. I also thought this was noteworthy:

Sorry, I think Graham is completley wrong. Obama has handled this pretty well. Someone, please pass the Jack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42189217/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/21/6312100-first-thoughts-at-war-again

 

IMO the libyan opposition is simply the highest bidder. They offered to the west more than Gadhafi did . All these about saving the lybians from the dictator, establishing democracy etc are BS. The west doesn't give a **** about the libyans or any other people, what they want is the oil, and since the opposition outbid Gadhafi and apparently gave guarantee, that they will not be a threat for Israel and that they will not give refuge to radical islamists, they decided to help them.

 

BTA, I've erased the last paragraph of my post because I had not noticed the following line from Chandos' post, which answers to my question.

 

Anyone like to hazard a guess who said it?

Personally, I feel all this will accomplish is trading one group of scumbags who hate the west for a different group of scumbags who hate the west.

 

Anti-Air defenses, perhaps - but I think there have been several instances of tanks or other ground vehicles being involved, which would imply the "coalition" is basically supporting the anti-Gaddafi insurgency. That might go a bit beyond the mandate the UN gave.

If that had happened 15-20 days ago perhaps Gaddafi would be done for, but in the meantime he gained the upper hand. We'll see how it works out - despite some of the "legal" issues I'm having a hard time being sympathetic to Gaddafi. I just hope the western forces are smart and avoid causing civilian casualties (and expose any attempts to "fake" them) - otherwise the operation may cause more trouble than it solves.

 

I have no problem with the general idea of smashing Moammar flat -- he's a vicious thug who needs to be put down.

I question, though, if even the mighty US can afford major military operations on three fronts at this time. I mean, how thinly can they stretch themselves? And how many other dictators out there need to be smashed? No questioning they all deserve it, but is it feasible / possible, and what of the backlash against America from others in the region who resent "western" adventurism in far flung world locations?

 

I do know who said this:

Time is up:

This was following a UN resolution. Put the UN and Obama in the same sentence and thusly the reason Snook needs a shot of Jack - Maybe a double.

Really? Let me know when the "new group of scumbags" [of whom you know next to nothing about] manage all this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

 

@Chandos,

You misunderstand me.

I just find it very amusing that the Senator (and candidate) who was so uphappy with a President and his military decisions is now a President doing the exact same things (if not even more frequently).

Reagan was correct in bombing Libya back then, and I don't have a problem with Obama bombing them now. I'm just not quite sure it will accomplish anything. It is kind of like in the good old days of Bush when everyone complained that we didn't have any goals or any exit strategy, or international support, etc. We seem to be following the script that everyone hated when Bush was in office. I keep waiting for Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink to start marching on Washington for peace. I'm guessing that will happen any day now.... or maybe I'll have to wait for January 2013 for that to happen

 

I don't mind the action. I noticed that Obama is trying quite hard to get the Europeans out front on this.

We are stressed-which is why we likely won't send in the marines or anything.

Some peace folks are upset with Obama already-this just irks them more.

Other people are probably more likely to support him on this than in Afghanistan (which he said he was going to try to ramp up in an attempt to succeed during his campaign even if it wasn't this much).

 

They are not the "exact" same things. However they are similar, and you didn't have to tune out reality for the tone deafness of the conservative echo chamber to make your point. It is still a somewhat valid point, even without the hysterical, partisan edge to it.

But let me post this for you a second time, unless you really aren't interested in what makes Obama's approach just a little different [more nuanced] from the Bush/Cheney debacle:

As I commented, you didn't need to diminish your own point, since even some on the Left are making the same point.

 

I think that Europe and America have, after encouraging the people to rise up against Qathafi by calling for him to step down, the moral responsibility to prevent him from butchering them.

IMO support should come as training, leadership advice and in providing the equipment necessary to defeat Qathafi. The (conspicuously unused) US Green Beret model comes to mind, supported by air strikes. I think that de opresso liber is a very straightforward motto, and Libya would be a perfect case to put it to use. In that spirit, I applaud the French, never mind that idiot Sarcozy.

Obama and liberal interventionists (R2P! (my ass, I like the Westphalian order)) everywhere will probably prove incapable of resisting the impulse to leave behind an open ended presence of peacekeepers (in which they are enthusiastically joined by the neo-cons). An open ended presence after Qathafi inevitably will be exploited to good propagandistic effect and be pressed into the narrative of Christian crusaders reconquering the Middle East. All such a presence would do is to generate resentment and resistance. In face of that inevitable consequence only an idiot feeds into such a strong opposing narrative, but alas, it has happened before.

The right way is IMO: After Qathafi is dead (probably the only way; since that mad dog has no friends, exile is not an option for him), help them form a government of some sort (I don't care whether it has purple fingers and elections) and leave. Why not reinstate that king of theirs? That oil of theirs? They can't drink it. They have to sell it. There is nothing else in that crap place that generates revenue.

And for pete's sake: No nation building (which anyway only places in power those exiles with the nicest ties and who speak English best and provide for pleasant photo ops on prime time tv)! The West is well advised not to try and to reinforce perceptions of (US/EU/NATO) weakness by failing in foolish pursuit of unattainable goals.

 

There is no way that things are as cut and dried as the media makes them to be.
Whatever. Ever.

It boils down that the west needs to establish it's hold on yet another dry running Oil-source.
Don't let tha eloquence of da Obama confuse you.

 

Nah. It isn't 'all about the oil' and the evil (Yankee/Euro) imperialists (again).

The US had to be dragged into this intervention kicking and screaming by the French. Senior US administration figures even went so far as to scold the French for their will to action. For some Americans to be irritated with the French over this is incredible. First they call them 'cheese eating surrender monkeys', but now they b*tch about this?

It's worth keeping in mind that it was the French who stopped Qathafi's incursion into Chad in the 1980s, at that time, with tacit US support.

What it rather is about is refugees and immigration and stability, in no particular order. Deposing Qathafi now that he eventually has become utterly unbearable - i.e. regime change - is a means to an end. In sharp contrast, in Iraq regime change was an end in itself. Also, offing Qathafi provides a noisy distraction that will allow Gulf states to quietly and violently impose order on their respective unrest while everybody looks at the raving kook with the fancy dresses. That, I assume, is also seen as desirable by some in D.C. Certainly by many in Israel who prefer the status quo over an uncertain future and are horrified about the recent developments in the Middle East.

I mean, just look at Qathafi. He is perfect with his talent to needlessly antagonise and burn bridges. In Lebanon the Hariri wing and Hezbollah are basically quietly hostile to each other. They are both united in hating Qathafi for him murdering a prominent Lebanese Shiite cleric. The Saudis? Qathafi iirc once tried to assassinate the current king Abdullah. Everybody will be happy to see him gone.

 

Operation Odyssey Dawn??? What kind of sissy name is that?

Although I'm glad we'll have some UN involvement. I'm sure the US will still shoulder most of the load here, but it's nice to have at least some help. I'm not sure what the exact strategy is going forward. If it's no boots on the ground, and the support is coming mostly from the air, then we certainly have the capability of doing that. Airstrikes in Iraq have pretty much ceased completely at this point, and most of the missions flown in Afghanistan are now done by drones.

If we are actually going to be sending soldiers in, then that's another matter. While there has been a draw down of forces in Iraq (atlhough by no means completely withdrawn), there's also a significant number of them deployed in Afghanistan. It seems like we have about the same number of soldiers in harms way as we did a few years ago. Violence in Iraq is way down, but it seems the draw down in military units there was accompanied by doubling down in Afghanistan.

Well, it's not really the same thing. As I said, I'm unsure if we are even considering an occupation force in Libya. If we aren't, then it's not very similar to Iraq or Afghanistan at all (even if we don't consider the UN's involvement).

As for the "more frequently" part... I'll need yo to explain that. The only other military action I can think of that Obama has taken since entering office is sending some snipers to take out the pirates holding an American captain hostage. Iraq and Afghanistan were already on the table when he took office.

 

Libya won't need as many troops as either Iraq or Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the French contained Qathafi with, at its peak, 2200 troops in Operation Epervier. What they did was to have the back of the side that Qathafi was fighting against. When it was over they left. They will try to do the same this time. Sensible IMO.

Not enough, of course, for the R2P crowd and the neo-cons.

 

Oh, please.

We just want him dead ... like nearly everyone else.

 

T2,
'Oh, please' yourself. It's not my fault that you don't follow the foreign policy debate in your country. I do, and I'm not going to dumb myself down for you.

I make a clear distinction between the liberal interventionists in Obama's camp (i.e. the R2P crowd), and the neo-cons who also embrace an intervention in Libya for their very own and different reasons. The neo-cons don't drive the policy, as they did in the first Bush term after 9/11, but key voices among them are for it. As for me, I think they're both wrong headed.

I think the French approach from the 1980s appears to be the right way. That is probably not what both liberal interventionists and the neo-cons have in mind.

 

At the risk of sounding foolish, what does R2P stand for?

 

T2,
from what I read, the Obama administration was initially persuaded by the Israelis and the Saudis (even though they hate Qathafi) to not object to Qathafi's crackdown, since they feared ripple effects if he, too, would fall. The Obama administration thus didn't do much until events left them no chance but to react. In all this Obama has been passive.

How he reacted then is another thing. It translates in to the initial policy of lip service for freedom and no actions - and in the US eventually dropping Mubarak. In doing so the US have abandoned an ally of 30 years at the drop of a hat, proven themselves unreliable to the Saudis who didn't even notified the US when they sent their troops into Bahrain to quell the (largely Shia) uprising there. The US has lost clout with their allies in the Middle East.

If the Obama administration wanted Qathafi dead, it didn't translate into policy, and considering the opposition the French encountered in DC with their intervention plans the desire to see Qathafi dead cannot have been all that pronounced. I believe that the reason why Obama initially opposed the French intervention was because of US domestic political concerns.

Aldeth,
R2P = Responsibility to Protect i.e. the justification for so-called "humanitarian interventions" (as good a fig leaf for interventions born of power politics as national interest, but with the added advantage of feeling better) - which is a direct challenge to the Westphalian order; IMO it is about abandoning a proven instrument of international stability without having something that can adequately take its place. A foolish thing to do IMO.