18 Mar

Obama: We’re Going To War With Libya…Well, Kinda Sorta

                                       

After waffling for weeks Obama has finally decided to go to war with Libya….

Well, ok…not go to war. He will pat other countries on the back and provide some transport aircraft maybe to help the cause.

What’s the cause?

Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.

The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.

The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.

Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

Uh huh….lets go back a few years and recall the reasons given by Bush to go to war with Iraq.

Atrocities against his people….check
Humanitarian crisis….check
Destabilization of the region….check
Calls by the Iraqi people for help….check
Democracy….check

Since Gaddafi gave up his WMD’s after Bush DID go to war with Iraq there is no WMD worries but I swear I’m getting a case of deja vu.

The big difference here is that Bush knew what it would take to actually be victorious. Obama does not.

We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone. I have no doubt that the men and women of our military are capable of carrying out this mission. Once more, they have the thanks of a grateful nation and the admiration of the world…

It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies and members of the Arab League have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it.

This man is a walking, talking, joke. “Enabling our allies”

He’s a joke and he’s making us all a big joke.

Here’s a more thorough analysis then I could ever give by Allah:

I’m amazed he threw in the bit about democratic values given that there’s no guarantee that the Libyan rebels will support democracy once they’ve taken care of Qaddafi. It’s a tribal society; it’ll go on being a tribal society when he’s gone, hopefully with some sort of parliament or congress where the tribes can confer, but whether tribal representatives will be elected is anyone’s guess. If democracy doesn’t happen, The One will be eating these words all the way to election day 2012. The part about destabilization is weird too considering that the big gripe among our “friends” in Riyadh is that it’s the White House that’s destabilizing the region by backing revolutionaries over old guard tyrants like Mubarak. In fact, the Journal had a must-read story just yesterday about how upheaval in Egypt and elsewhere is knocking off some of America’s counterterrorism allies and helping to spring dangerous jihadis from prison. If Qaddafi is ousted and Libya melts down and becomes an Afghanistan on the Mediterranean, that’ll be arguably as dangerous for us, our allies, and partners as Qaddafi is. And Obama will hear about that endlessly until election day, too. And rightly so.

What I wouldn’t give to have an actual leader at the helm right now.

Final thought to Andrew C. McCarthy:

I’m not finding in President Obama’s remarks the part where he seeks approval from Congress for military operations in Libya. Last time I checked the Constitution, the Security Council doesn’t get to authorize that.

Rich is right that this is Kosovo II. But Kosovo I is not a precedent — it is an example of illegitimate use of force. Congress refused to approve it. As I’ve argued before, I think it was proper for the courts to decline to resolve this political tug of war between the political branches, but that did not validate Clinton’s actions. And certainly Kosovo was not thought a precedent when the Bush administration decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Notwithstanding that those situations actually involved vital U.S national security interests, congressional authorization was sought and obtained before our armed forces were dispatched.

In Libya, by contrast, there are no vital U.S. security interests. That argues more for seeking approval from the representatives of the people being asked to foot the bill, not less.

UPDATE

Ok, maybe Andrew doesn’t get the last word….just too much good stuff being written:

If all goes well with the cease-fire, the White House will have done what the White House does best — divert attention from its inability to exercise decisive leadership. During the Gulf oil spill, Obama failed to get ahead of the most slow-moving crisis in history, yet he largely escaped criticism. In dealing with Iran, Tehran has applied rope-a-dope with sanctions and its nuclear program and the White House still doesn’t get it. Obama “forced” an arms-control treaty on Russia that ensured it would be a strategic nuclear power equal to the U.S. and maintain a 10-to-1 advantage over America in tactical nuclear weapons. The president convinced the Europeans to back a missile-defense program that provides less defense, at higher cost, that will likely appear long after Iran develops a missile and bomb that can smoke a European city. If these are the benefits of the Obama Doctrine, it’s not clear how much good news the U.S. can stand before it loses its superpower status.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Middle East, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, March 18th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
| 970 views

28 Responses to Obama: We’re Going To War With Libya…Well, Kinda Sorta

  1. Meremortal says: 1

    Two things:

    1. One of those rocks Hillary threw through Bammy’s window carried a note: “Primary, bitches!”

    2. You don’t need Congressional approval to go to war if you pass the global test, which is, others lead the way and you just follow them.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    Gaddafi threaened Europe with an illegal influx of Africans who he would enable IF Italy didn’t pay him $5 billion.
    Well, in 2008, Italy paid that money.
    But guess what?
    $5billion just don’t buy what it used to.
    The influx are on their way.
    And just hours after claiming he wanted a ceasefire, Gaddafi is back to assaulting his own people if rebels are imagined to be in their towns and cities.
    _________________________
    The town of Misrata is under fire right now from Col. Ceasefire Gaddafi.
    At least 12 are dead because of Gaddafi, including a 4-year old girl.
    Gaddafi forces felt that the little girl’s dad was a rebel.
    Good enough reason to shoot her up.
    Both Ajdabiya and Zawiyah are also under fire.
    Wall street Journal has more.

    You know, I’m not sure how bad the rebel takeover could be but Gaddafi is killing little girls.
    Stopping him might be a good start.

    ReplyReply
  3. DrJohn says: 4

    @Nan G: Nan, it was an armed insurrection. I really don’t think we have any business there.

    We ignored all that in China, Iran, North Korea and other places. This makes no sense in light of it.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 5

    @DrJohn:
    I personally agree with you, Dr.John.
    I was looking at it from the European standpoint.
    What would be their rationale since they cannot come right out and say they oppose a huge influx of African refugees.

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 6

    Well, ok…not go to war. He will pat other countries on the back and provide some transport aircraft maybe to help the cause.

    If that’s all it takes to get results it’s fine with me. We can always increase our level of involvement if needed.

    ReplyReply
  6. DrJohn says: 7

    @Greg: Results, Greg? What results?

    ReplyReply
  7. DrJohn says: 8

    Since Gaddafi gave up his WMD’s after Bush DID go to war with Iraq there is no WMD worries but I swear I’m getting a case of deja vu.

    Yeah, me too.

    ;-)

    ReplyReply
  8. Tom says: 9

    Well, ok…not go to war. He will pat other countries on the back and provide some transport aircraft maybe to help the cause.

    What’s wrong with that? America hasn’t done enough to promote democracy in the Middle East? You want us to foot another bill in blood and treasure? And I suppose you’d be more than happy if we raised taxes to pay for this? Obama is so stupid because he held out until other countries finally stepped up to do something in the world? That makes a lot of sense.

    We’re doing something. Just our presence in the coalition is huge inducement for Gadaffi to run. That should be enough for now. We still have options if he doesn’t do the right thing. No reason to go all in on the first hand. We’ve done that before, to less than sterling results.

    ReplyReply
  9. rich wheeler says: 10

    Curt says Bush knew what it would take to be victorious in Iraq.Do you think he knew we’d lose 4300 dead and over 30,000 wounded.I HOPE NOT.
    Any guess on American casualties in this International effort to bring down Gadaffi?

    ReplyReply
  10. DrJohn says: 11

    @rich wheeler: As Gary K might say- “Say what?”

    Cameron says the move is about saving lives and protecting people in Libya and insists it was “not about choosing the government of Libya.”

    http://www.france24.com/en/20110318-cameron-sarkozy-lead-no-fly-zone-effort-libya-benghazi

    ReplyReply
  11. rich wheeler says: 12

    Dr. J. Gaddafi Goes Do you doubt it?

    ReplyReply
  12. Gregory_Dittman says: 13

    Does the U.S. need to destroy the air defenses for a no fly zone? Not really. Countries could assist Lybian rebels with a host of SA weapons such as the SA-7.

    Lybia’s best SA weapon is the S-200 which was made in 1963 and the later models have an altitude cap of 40,000m. It requires assisted radar lock from the ground. Destroy the radars on the ground and the missiles become just rockets. From what I can find, they are only good against flying objects that turn poorly and they don’t have friend and foe capability. In the last attack ordered by Reagan, one F-111 was shot down. With Lybians troops shooting at planes, they run out of ammo shooting at rebels.

    ReplyReply
  13. Drjohn says: 14

    @rich wheeler: How does Gaddafi go now that he’s crushed the rebellion? The horses are GONE now that Barn Door Obama has made a decision.

    ReplyReply
  14. rich wheeler says: 15

    Dr J. Better late than never. Benghazi will hold.Too many folks want this psycho gone ASAP.

    ReplyReply
  15. GADAFI is fighting REBELS who want to take power, but wHat kind of POWER,
    IT tell of this rebellion is lead by terrorists forces who have an agenda against AMERICA,
    AND ISRAEL: JUST LOOK AROUND OTHER MOVEMENTS IN UNISON, OF MUSLIM COUNTRYS,
    GADAFI IS DEFENDING HIS PEOPLE, AGAINST THAT TERRORIST MOVEMENT, JUST LIKE BARHAIM, AND EGYPT, AND OTHERS, AND THE UNITED STATES WILL BE THEIR ICING ON THE CAKE AFTER
    THAT PART OF THE CIRCLE IS WON, THEY WILL NOT REST UNTIL THE CIRCLE HIS CLOSE.

    ReplyReply
  16. HAVE you all notice that OBAMA favor those rebellions, and iNcite other COUNTRY AS UN DOES , to go start the ACT OF WAR, very dangerous is he,trying to get his work done by the other COUNTRY,
    REMEMBER WHAT GADAFI TOLD HIM, THAT HE HIS THE SON OF HIS ANCESTOR.

    ReplyReply
  17. Nan G says: 18

    People are starting to notice that Obama and the coalition is going into ”no-fly” status, NOT to help the ”rebels,” but to help the ”civilians,” of Libya.
    What happens once the civilian population is safe is up for guesses.
    But no particular rebel leader or force is being backed.

    ReplyReply
  18. Nan G says: 19

    The Egyptian mob just stoned and threw shoes at Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Peace laureate and a secular contender for Egypt’s presidency, as he tried to vote Saturday in a referendum on constitutional amendments.
    The Muslim Brotherhood is saying NO! to any stinking placeholder pretending to have Egypt look secular.
    Straight to Sharia, Muslim Brotherhood style.

    Presumably ElBaraday was going to vote no on the referendum, which is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Linky- Oh, and he lived, so it was just a warning.

    ReplyReply
  19. Nan G, hi, that’ is the influence they push on other COUNTRYS as we see uprising all around there!!! I recall OBAMA stating they were not dangerous no problem with them, HOW would he like to receive that same stone on his head, yes the man lives but what pain followed on him after,he could have consequences of this” terrorist action”, we have to give their right name; all his life, I bet anyone remember a fall or minor injury that is still painfull at time, or cause an operation of internal organ years later, that ston throwing was not a minor thing
    for sure, bye

    ReplyReply
  20. Nan G says: 21

    Gaddafi will be making his last-ditch ploy to try to line the umma (body of all Muslim people) against the infidels.
    He will cast himself as opposing the ”Crusaders.”

    I will look for him using these two terms:
    Dar al Islam (the realm of Islam)
    Dar al Harb (the realm of war, literally Domain of Disbelief)

    Since the Arab League is on board for this intervention I am hoping his words will fall on deaf ears.

    ReplyReply
  21. NanG, hi, GADDAFI don’t worry me, It’s who’s coming after him, if he allow it to happen,
    he must continiu to fight the rebels

    ReplyReply
  22. rich wheeler says: 23

    Ms Bees I’d suggest anyone who supports this genocidal madman Gaddafi should examine closely their own value system.

    ReplyReply
  23. rich wheeler let’s put it this way, so you can eazily pick up, WHAT It is that I don’t SUPPORT the ones who will take his place if he allow them to win. HE has been there for a long time and rule with a hand of steel,
    that kind of mentality need to be on check by the leader, and they did stay on check, BUT know it’s an outside force that is inciting the EGYPT surrounded COUNTRYS and they need to be fought to stop their advances always pushing further one after the other will fall into their hands if not fought back,
    and they are not peaceful, and not freedom lovers their agenda is murder and chaos, and they now are trying to march ahead,
    what would you choose for your COUNTRY!!! of course the lesser of the evil,

    ReplyReply
  24. Pingback: HERE WE GO AGAIN, ANOTHER WAR? WHY DOES THE US FIGHT FOR THE MUSLIMS? «

  25. Pingback: Candidate Obama would demand impeachment of President Obama [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

  26. Pingback: Candidate Obama Would Impeach President Obama | Impeach Obama Campaign

  27. Pingback: Candidate Obama would demand impeachment of President Obama « The American Kafir

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>