Excellent summation of this Libyan situation by George Friedman…Obama has really stepped in it this time:
…According to the narrative, what happened in Libya was another in a series of democratic uprisings, but in this case suppressed with a brutality outside the bounds of what could be tolerated. Bahrain apparently was inside the bounds, and Egypt was a success, but Libya was a case in which the world could not stand aside while Gadhafi destroyed a democratic uprising. Now, the fact that the world had stood aside for more than 40 years while Gadhafi brutalized his own and other people was not the issue. In the narrative being told, Libya was no longer an isolated tyranny but part of a widespread rising — and the one in which the West’s moral integrity was being tested in the extreme. Now was different from before.
Of course, as with other countries, there was a massive divergence between the narrative and what actually happened. Certainly, that there was unrest in Tunisia and Egypt caused opponents of Gadhafi to think about opportunities, and the apparent ease of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings gave them some degree of confidence. But it would be an enormous mistake to see what has happened in Libya as a mass, liberal democratic uprising. The narrative has to be strained to work in most countries, but in Libya, it breaks down completely.
As we have pointed out, the Libyan uprising consisted of a cluster of tribes and personalities, some within the Libyan government, some within the army and many others longtime opponents of the regime, all of whom saw an opportunity at this particular moment. Though many in western portions of Libya, notably in the cities of Zawiya and Misurata, identify themselves with the opposition, they do not represent the heart of the historic opposition to Tripoli found in the east. It is this region, known in the pre-independence era as Cyrenaica, that is the core of the opposition movement. United perhaps only by their opposition to Gadhafi, these people hold no common ideology and certainly do not all advocate Western-style democracy. Rather, they saw an opportunity to take greater power, and they tried to seize it.
According to the narrative, Gadhafi should quickly have been overwhelmed — but he wasn’t. He actually had substantial support among some tribes and within the army. All of these supporters had a great deal to lose if he was overthrown. Therefore, they proved far stronger collectively than the opposition, even if they were taken aback by the initial opposition successes. To everyone’s surprise, Gadhafi not only didn’t flee, he counterattacked and repulsed his enemies.
….As Gadhafi closed in on Benghazi, the narrative shifted from the triumph of the democratic masses to the need to protect them from Gadhafi — hence the urgent calls for airstrikes. But this was tempered by reluctance to act decisively by landing troops, engaging the Libyan army and handing power to the rebels: Imperialism had to be avoided by doing the least possible to protect the rebels while arming them to defeat Gadhafi. Armed and trained by the West, provided with command of the air by the foreign air forces — this was the arbitrary line over which the new government keeps from being a Western puppet. It still seems a bit over the line, but that’s how the story goes.
In fact, the West is now supporting a very diverse and sometimes mutually hostile group of tribes and individuals, bound together by hostility to Gadhafi and not much else. It is possible that over time they could coalesce into a fighting force, but it is far more difficult imagining them defeating Gadhafi’s forces anytime soon, much less governing Libya together. There are simply too many issues between them. It is, in part, these divisions that allowed Gadhafi to stay in power as long as he did. The West’s ability to impose order on them without governing them, particularly in a short amount of time, is difficult to imagine…
…The comparison to Iraq is obvious. Both countries had a monstrous dictator. Both were subjected to no-fly zones. The no-fly zones don’t deter the dictator. In due course, this evolves into a massive intervention in which the government is overthrown and the opposition goes into an internal civil war while simultaneously attacking the invaders. Of course, alternatively, this might play out like the Kosovo war, where a few months of bombing saw the government surrender the province. But in that case, only a province was in play. In this case, although focused ostensibly on the east, Gadhafi in effect is being asked to give up everything, and the same with his supporters — a harder business.
In my view, waging war to pursue the national interest is on rare occasion necessary. Waging war for ideological reasons requires a clear understanding of the ideology and an even clearer understanding of the reality on the ground. In this intervention, the ideology is not crystal clear, torn as it is between the concept of self-determination and the obligation to intervene to protect the favored faction. The reality on the ground is even less clear. The reality of democratic uprisings in the Arab world is much more complicated than the narrative makes it out to be, and the application of the narrative to Libya simply breaks down. There is unrest, but unrest comes in many sizes, democratic being only one.
Whenever you intervene in a country, whatever your intentions, you are intervening on someone’s side. In this case, the United States, France and Britain are intervening in favor of a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have failed to coalesce, at least so far, into a meaningful military force. The intervention may well succeed. The question is whether the outcome will create a morally superior nation. It is said that there can’t be anything worse than Gadhafi. But Gadhafi did not rule for 42 years because he was simply a dictator using force against innocents, but rather because he speaks to a real and powerful dimension of Libya.
Not much to add there, George succinctly lays out the problems in not only the strategy but also in the execution and the overall ideology of this Libyan excursion. Gaddafi will not be going anywhere without troops on the ground. And that won’t happen. A few days into this thing and China is already calling for the airstrikes to end and wants an immediate ceasefire.
The lack of any leadership is galling. I know the liberal left is always clamoring on and on about “why should we always take the lead?” and my answer would be because that is what we do. We are leaders. We are not followers. Well, we were when we had a leader at the helm with a spine.
Not so much anymore and look at where this staying behind the scenes is going to get us…chaos”
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Monday called for command of operations enforcing the no-fly zone to be passed to NATO, suggesting the use of Italy’s seven military bases by coalition forces lacked proper coordination. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron also said NATO should lead operations. But France, which just rejoined NATO’s command structure in 2009 after three decades, indicated it doesn’t want NATO to play a central role.
…Turkey, a NATO member that has opposed the use of force in Libya and was still seething over being omitted from a planning meeting in Paris on Saturday, refused on Sunday to back a NATO military plan for the no-fly zone.
China is opposing this operation, Russia isn’t too happy with it. The Arab League supported it and now doesn’t.
This is going to quickly turn into a clusterf**k and when you add in the fact that Obama has said that we will be in the mix for a bit but then we are hightailing it outta there, leaving France and England in the lurch as the situation quickly goes from bad to worst, the relationships between the countries and pretty much all our allies can’t help but worsen.
Up and down the frontier of American global power, from the South China Sea to the Middle East, from the Caucasus to the north Central European plain, U.S. allies are increasingly nervous. Along the littoral rim of East Asia, South Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese and others in the region watched anxiously throughout 2010 as China ratcheted up efforts to assert control over strategic waterways and challenge the U.S. position in Asia. In the Middle East, too, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States ended the year less confident than ever that the United States would somehow bestir itself to contain an aspiring nuclear-armed Iran. And on Europe’s eastern fringe, despite efforts at détente with Moscow, Poland and the Baltic States entered 2011 with deep uncertainties about America’s long-term regional commitment in the face of a decrepit but atavistically revisionist Russia.
Viewed separately, these are unrelated regional silos, each with its own geopolitical rhythm, security logic and ranking in the hierarchy of American strategic and political priorities. But seen together, a different picture emerges. In all three regions, small, geopolitically exposed states with formal or informal U.S. security commitments straddle age-old strategic fault lines in close proximity to rising or resurgent power centers. In all three, assertiveness on the part of these larger powers has led American allies to reassess U.S. assurances. And in all three, American allies have been at best temporarily reassured, and at times unsettled, by Washington’s response. This has led them all, to one degree or another, to invest in new strategic options to hedge against the possibility of eventual American retrenchment.
Oh, and don’t forget the hypocrisy of Obama, his administration, and the lefties who now support war…that will come back to bite him in the a** quickly.
In the end, the dictator will most likely survive, and in power and the world will look like fools.
See author page
Curt, I don’t know a whole of of us on the Left who are supporting Obama on this one. We’re pretty pissed about this. In fact, here’s probably one of the big Liberals in Congress with some pretty strong words about it…
For a moment there I thought we had a Strategy, what we have is a person in charge who want’s to be able to say he tried to do the right thing, sorry that I failed. What he does not get is that he is putting our Men and Women in harms way. There is no reset button to hit if you get wounded or killed while serving.
It does make you wonder just how, and why, the Arab League used their power to tip the poker hand, Curt. I have to assume they are well aware of the 97% of Sunnis in Libya, and their various tribal allegiences.
I’ve been against this from the start of the rumor mill dribblings. I think US citizens from all political sides can see this is a FUBAR’d mission from the get go. The big four I remember abstaining was Russia, China, Brazil and Germany. The latter is now pointing fingers at the Arab League’s change of heart, saying “see! That’s why we abstained!”
Obviously they possessed common sense the rest of the western world did not.
Your final line in the post is pretty much the same assessment as my latest post’s headline…. we’ve been duped. We’ve been “had” big time.
Now the burning question is how, and why.
Now now, @Cary. You’re being too kind calling Kucinich a “big liberal”. He’s part of the Progressive Caucus,which has been the diving board for the Democrat Socialists of America.
Let’s just say he’s an embarrassment to Blue Dogs, and a useful idiot for the Dem progressive leadership. He makes them look sane.
@MataHarley:
LOL yes, I nearly used the phrase “among the furthest left of the Left” – but I figured you guys knew who he is! But this makes his strong words against Obama that much MORE significant. Even his strongest supporters are backing away.
If you are going to buy a camel, it is prudent to have a Bedouin negotiating for you. However be aware that he may be related to the person selling the camel. The Saudis and many of the other Arab nations may well be acting like your friendly Bedouin.
Personally, I believe this is part of Ivan’s master plan to get the US embroiled in war after war after war. Notice, if they were really against it they could have voted no instead of abstaining.
Ivan is using the ME and Islam to suck dry the life-blood of the US.
Wag the Dog…Wag it till the chickens come home to roost.
I seem to remember a number of media pundits and “experts” saying that Quadafi (whatever) would be gone in hours/days….etc.
Twenty seven days and counting. So much for the “experts” prognostications eh?
There appears to be no doubt that Obama has no strategic plan for either Libya or the Middle East. No one involved seems clear at to what the objective of the offensive on Gaddafi really is. Hoping for the best isn’t a strategy or mission that anyone can possibly buy into.
No firm quid pro quos were extracted from anyone in exchange for the unique state of the art systems in this new war. Why?
This is one of those times when I think Obama should heed advice from a much wiser President, Calvin Coolidge:
“The words of a President have an enormous weight, and ought not to be used indiscriminately.” Obama’s constant daily lip-flapping is now getting both he and America in trouble. Trash the teleprompter permanently.
. . . And before heading blindly into another boondoggle, more from the prescient Coolidge:
“Never go out to meet trouble. If you will just sit still, nine cases out of ten someone will intercept it before it reaches you.”
I’m a big supporter of negotiating hard, but damn, picking your battles is a big part of long term success.
Obama and the droning sycophants around him are undoubtedly completely out of their depths and drowning, but they seem to not care that there’s a country suffering as a result of their ignorance.
James Raider, to assume Obama had “a plan” would assume he is something more than a trailing puppet to the UN, the Arab League, France, Britain, his SOS and UN advisors….
Don’t think there ever was “a plan”. Just a knee jerk reaction as a culmination to lots of ME protests, garnering coverage on the TV screen and Internet. Ya know, all that “humanitarian” appearance crap? This is “leader of the free world”, flying by the seat of someone else’s pants, and without a seat belt.
If anyone has “a plan”, it’s the Arab League and ME leaders in general. We have yet to see what that plan is, but we’re falling into line quite nicely, don’t you think?
News Flash:
Obama heads home, cutting his trip short. Absolute brilliance in full regalia.
@MataHarley: #12
“. . . we’re falling into line quite nicely, don’t you think?”
It’s so refreshing to see that orders from the UN, the hallowed and supreme body filled with wisdom and enlightenment, are followed by Obama.
The effort couldn’t have been executed effectively without U.S. technology. The U.S. has the upper hand in any such conflict. Once Obama decided to obey the international thugs, as well as Sarcozy who’s also campaigning for re-election, why was there at the very least nothing extracted from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait etc., before committing? Anything?
The short term and blind thinking is baffling.
Breaking News:
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has suspended Libya from the global human rights watchdog body.
. . . . This must be that Quid Pro Quo I’ve been looking for. How absolutely great. Glad these guys are leading American foreign strategy.
For answers as to what or who might be behind this Libyan revolt, we can look first to Iran.
This will prove to be a minor skirmish for U.S. forces, and the serious reaction on the home front, will cause Obama to refrain from future engagement on more important upcoming battle fronts in the Middle East. Iran will then have greater freedom to act.
Members of both parties complaining Congress wasn’t consulted.
Four days into the operation and members of Congress are asking what the mission, goals, and end state are. (Could have sworn some mebmers were briefed the week prior to the bombing. A disconnect exists somewhere).
Four days into the operation and no one knows who is going to be in charge of operations after the bombing is over.
Four days into the operation and the coalition is already bickering amongst themselves.
Four days into the operation and POTUS has not been on American soil.
The humanitarian goal of stopping Gadhafi from killing his people won’t be accomplished until he is removed from power. No fly zones didn’t stop Saddam from killing his people nor did sanctions. It most likely won’t stop Gadhafi either. Getting rid of him may very well require boots on the ground.
If Gadahfi goes, great. If not, this will be a failure but not a failure of our military because they will accomplish their mission whatever that may be.
Speaking of the military, they have a phrase for what has happened so far. The first word is cluster. You can fill in the second.
I have been afraid of this for a long time. Early in the Obama presidency, I posted here that he was fundamentally a lazy individual who was caught up in the trappings and accouterments of the office. He could muster all the resources of the government to fly his wife to NYC for a date. He could invite all and any celebs to the White House for a party. He could even profess allegiance to the legacy of the Beatles by inviting Sir Paul to the White House to receive a freedom medal.
And then there was Air Force One and all those helicopters that could run him in grand style to whatever golf course suited his fancy. He could enlist all the power and prestige of the office to jet off to Copenhagen to argue for Chicago’s well deserved local for the Olympics. With all that pomp and circumstance available, he could keep his good wife out of his hair by jetting her and 60 friends to Spain or was it Aspen. He could pick up the phone and call anyone in the world and they would take his call. He could make the most inane statement and the fawning press would testify to his genius. There were all these toys and all this power.
And out of the corner of his eye he saw those mighty air craft carriers, the missile frigates, the stealth bombers, the jets, the guns, the bombs and all of the men in uniform beckoning to his command, for after all, he was Commander in Chief.
Well he had sure hated that bunch of military dunces for most of his life. But the hardware was cool and the explosions were huge and all he had to do is say “go” and all that machinery and all those men in uniform and all those women in uniform and all those planes, tanks, ships, etc. etc. would spring into action. After all, he was Commander in Chief.
And all that military power began to itch in places that he couldn’t reach to scratch. Blinded by his abysmal ignorance of the tribalism, politics, and general irrationality of the Middle East, when some of the “on the outs” tribes began to stir against their oppressors, he saw their actions as even more significant than had been the Continental Congress. After all, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe and the rest of those white guys were just dreaming up ways to get rich on the backs of the ordinary folk. What did they know about government or freedom? The Egyptians in the street were the real democrats and it was only a matter of time before they would draw up a constitution that would put ours to shame. And, of course, the Islamic extremists were only a fantasy of the hated Republicans who have never gotten anything right. There was no danger there.
And as the unrest spread across the north of Africa, King Obama said, “This is good.” and in his inadequate mind, it was good, for he said them folks in the street were “yearning for democracy.” And their democracies would be even better than the one he hated most, our own.
And he got to thinking, “You know, it would sure be a kick if I could show the world how tough I really am by getting those military folks on board.” “There are some who say that the use of military power represents a legitimate projection of American leadership, while others say that military force should only be used when the country is threatened. But that is a false choice, for military force can and should be used when it suits a President’s need to show the world just how damn tough he is.”
And he kept thinking about all those planes and ships and bombs and rockets. And then there was an uprising in Libya. Where you say?? That North African backwater of a country ruled by a nutcase much like Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro in Cuba, or that fine specimen of humanity, Kim Jun Puke in North Korea, all of whom have had the warmest of greetings from the big “O”. And our Prince managed to take a few moments away from his March Madness brackets to pronounce that Gidaffi “must go.” and then he went back to planning his spring break vacation on the Rio beaches. Surely he thought that by so pronouncing, Gidaffi would go the way of Mubarak, who after all had the good sense to obey the command of the all wise Master.
But that was not to be, for Gidaffi knew the folks he was dealing with. A bunch of warring tribes that he had kept in check for 42 years by knocking off the bigger troublemakers and paying off those that were useful. His “son” Obama was just confused about what was and what wasn’t important in Libya and Gidaffi was going to show the world that he was in charge and intended to stay in charge. In fact, he ordered a few more outlandish costumes to be worn when the whole kerfuffle was over.
“What?” said Obama, “that desert lizard is not obeying my commands.” “That ugly man is not listening to beautiful me?” Doesn’t he realize that I have all that nifty hardware that I have been itching to use. I will teach him a lesson and I will get to truly scratch my itch to see just how all those toys work and what they can do.”
And so, folks, we have a boy and his toys that at the Presidential level means a war with no objective, no rationale, no end game, and no chance of coming out right. If Gadiffi is gone, the country will surely descend into chaos as the tribes and the thugs and the Imams and the military all fight over the scraps and in the process drive all of the normal people, if any, out of the country to Europe where they can join the Islamization there. If Gadiffi stays, el President becomes exposed as the dim wit that he is and America is once again the bad guy. This is not going to end well. No doubt about it.
Disturber
Ed Morrissey has good commentary that describes my position on Obama and his late or no decision on Lybia. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/23/wapo-mission-most-definitely-not-accomplished-in-odyssey-dawn/
It is NOT surprising that the MSM isn’t pointing the finger at Obama’s “Gaddafi Removal” objective.
If anyone else was advocating assassination of a foreign leader, they be pilloried.
It is NOT surprising that the MSM isn’t pointing the finger at Obama’s “Gaddafi Removal” objective.
If anyone else was advocating assassination of a foreign leader, they’d be pilloried.
……… Oooops – apologies for the double posting. Hmmm.
Oh, c’mon, Curt…this ain’t a war….it’s a kinetic military action. 😀
@Disturber: , #16:
What would the the results for the west likely have been if the world had simply stood by and watched as Gadaffi put down a populace uprising through a series of military massacres? Without western intervention that would almost certainly have happened already. We’d be left with an emboldened, oil-rich despot with a long history of terrorist activites, free to operate across an increasingly unstable region.
What is it about this that people don’t get? The guy is a more credible threat that Saddam Hussein was at the point when we finally launched a full-scale invasion and occupation. We might remove this particular threat with timely but far more limited military action–such as what we’ve seen over the past few days.
Gingrich yammers on and on about “incoherent strategy”. It’s not incoherent. It’s purposefully unstated. Basically, the strategy is to set things up so that someone else can remove Gadaffi. Or, failing that, to leave his regime destablilized and militarily weakened. That last bit has probably been accomplished already.
Why the strategy is unstated should be obvious: It’s to our benefit to be preceived as providing support to Libyan rebels for humanitarian reasons. It’s to our benefit not to be seen as the prime mover. A big part of Obama’s international strategy is about changing perceptions. We’ve been a target for terrorists because of perceptions. Islamic extremism gains or loses popular support because of perceptions.
Does Obama have to spell out our unstated objectives with sufficient clarity to create an anti-U.S. backlash across the entire Muslim world? That’s apparently what it would take to satisfy people like Gingrich.
Perhaps I should give Newt the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a bit stupid. The alternative would be that he’s putting partisan politics and personal interests ahead of national interests.
@Greg: Greg you do not have a clue as usual.
because it is unknown.
@Randy, #22:
There are plenty of clues about the thinking behind our military intervention in Libya. It’s also obvious why so much has gone unsaid.
What I’m genuinely clueless about is exactly what Obama’s most vocal critics would be doing differently. Gingrich, for example, has totally reversed himself over the course of a couple of weeks. The only thing he and people like him are consistent about is their reflexive opposition to Barack Obama.
Greg #21 Excellent
@Greg: Greg, read the Hotair post about Palin. The decision was too long in coming and the action was too little too late. There are military plans on the shelf for most contingencies. They just need to be dusted off and implemented. That takes an executive who will make the right decision at the right time. Big O voted present again and this mess is the result. I have not waivered on this and neither have those of us who understand what really is happening.
Oh my… where to begin. Had the “the world had simply stood by and watched as Gadaffi put down a populace uprising “, we would simply have observed yet another civil war in a nation take place. As far as your comment, “We’d be left with an emboldened, oil-rich despot with a long history of terrorist activites, free to operate across an increasingly unstable region.”…. that would be the status quo we have been dealing with for decades.
Your point?
We don’t buy Libya’s light sweet crude.** Libya would have continued to have sold it to their usual customers, and we’d continue to purchase it from
Chavez… correction, Nigeria. Sorry. Getting all these scummy countries mixed up these days.**Actually, I’m now going to correct myself. Libya, as well as Venezuela are two of the two among the 11 OPEC countries we purchase oil from. **
OMG… the history revisionists at work again. As I pointed out to Skookum, Gaddafi’s attack, via Abu Nidal in some cases and funding in others, on not one, but two Pan Am airlines was an attack not against America, but an attack against a private owned airline with global business entities. Americans were not the only ones to die on that flight, but were there in high percentages because it was a flight headed to the States. Yet they also hijacked the same airline on the ground in Pakistan a couple of years earlier. They attacked a Berlin nightclub where Americans died. It’s a Berlin, Germany club… not a Berlin, Maine club.
My point is Gaddafi is a state terror sponsor, and that’s nothing new. So is Iran, Syria, Cuba… and more than a handful of African and South American nations. There is little difference between interfering in a civil war in Libya than in those other nations.
On the other hand, both Iraq and Iran did indeed attack the US… Saddam by his involvement in Somalis, and Iran by their QUDs training and support of fighters in Iraq against the US military. Absolute and direct assaults the the US.
As far as the “humanitarian” bunk they are selling you gullible guppies, then again many of us will remind you of Darfur, Somalia (where they are attacked US owned vessels in piracy), Tunesia, Yemen… take your pick.
Nope.. none of yours, or your POTUS’ whitewashed reasons for justification hold an eyedropper of credibility.
As far as Gingrich goes… who the heck cares? I disagree with him on this as much as I disagree with Palin. That’s the breaks. No perfect conservative mouthpiece of possible candidate for me. Surprise, surprise.
The, the last laugh of the day…
Why yes he does. Even if not required to seek Congressional approval, before he commits US lives and troops to yet another war in this economy, and when we are already engaged elsewhere, he should do as his predecessors have done before and bring the case to the US citizens and/or Congress. Or in the case of Bush, to the citizens, Congress AND the UN. Altho I place little stock in the latter.
Obama not only did this on the eve of a Senate recess, therefore bypassing Congress, he did not come to the citizens with his vast amounts of face time he usually sucks up. He waited not only for UN, but make it hinge ultimately the Arab League.
We now need the Arab League’s blessings?
Too many of you attempt to defend the indefensible. We are not, and should not be at the beck and call of either the UN or the Arab League. Libya is a civil war, and certainly not the only “humanitarian” situation in the world. In fact, if you really want a reality check, Libya is a civil war against armed rebels. Darfur is genuine genocide against unarmed citizens. Somalian pirates are attacked unarmed commercial and private vessels. Which is genuinely a humanitarian need? And which is a nation’s own business with civil war?
And since when are we ordered to fight a civil war for foreign nations by the US and the Arab League?
If the Arab League wanted to even the playing field and prevent “civilian” slaughter… meaning those armed civilians also shooting at Gaddafi forces… our WH and our UN ambassador should have simply said that this is a civil war, and if the Arab League wants to intervene in an Islamic civil war situation, they have their own nations with war planes to do the job themselves.
Our interests are not humanitarian, and they are not national security. The war monger title is officially transferred to the Dems and this POTUS. Wear your mantle well.
Mata Two #s you might consider when comparing OUR involvement in Iraq and Libya.4300+ and 30,000+vs. no casualties to date (Amen) The massacre of over 100,ooo in Benghazi has been stopped,Libyan army severely damaged and Col. G sleeping poorly. I’m not saying “mission accomplished” just damn good job.
rich wheeler, that’s because our joke of a CiC assures us we are not in a war. How can we have casualties when we are not in a war?
How many casualties for the almost a decade of Iraq no fly did we have? More homework for you. Of course, that wasn’t a war either, according to Clinton.
Mata As a former Marine platoon commander I love the sound of “no friendly casualties.”
As a ditto to Mata, who are the threatened civilians anyway? Are the ones driving around in pickup trucks with machine guns? Are they one of the many tribes that are competing with Gadaffi’s tribe for power. And then, suppose we force a standoff between the factions in this civil war. What then? Are we going to impose democratic institutions on a country that is basically a collection of warring tribes that would sooner kill each other than sit down for dinner? Or do we split the country in half? How are we getting out of Dodge?
Greg, you would kiss obama’s butt no matter how many flies are in the neighborhood. Situational ethics and moral relativism is what you are all about. As that is true of most lefties, I can’t say you are unique. But look in the mirror my boy and tell me that those that have died at the evil hands of Gadaffi are any less dead and are of any equivalent quantity than the hundreds of thousands that Saddam dispatched, or the similar numbers that have been and are being killed by the Assad family in Syria. And if fact, no one knows how many Libyans have been killed or will be killed. It is all guesswork and close enough isn’t good enough in the business of war – or excuse me, they are calling it kinetic intervention, those crap heads.
I am conservative and would like to see Gadaffi stuffed in ground. I just don’t think it is our business to do that deed in this context and since the POTUS has said that is not the objective, what is the objective. Oh, Greg, I forgot about the secret plans. My bad.
And Mr. Wheeler, where did you get that 100,000 figure? Got some intelligence on the ground, or anywhere else?
Disturber
Disturber Last Fri Gadhafi had reached Benghazi a city of 300,ooo and the rebel base.Clinton is saying right now that “hundreds of thousands of civilians were endangered”.G said he was taking retribution.
Saturday’s arrival of coalition jets put G’s forces in retreat and prevented a massacre per HRC.
I share your wish to see Gadhafi stuffed in the ground or at least in Chavez’s guest house.
Clinton along with Samantha Powers are rumored to be the people who successfully promoted this new war. They will use any justification they can. Do you really believe that 1/3rd of the Benghazi residents would be slaughtered? Get real. And, in the end, is it really our business? What is the American interest that is advanced by killing Muslims that are killing other Muslims. Oh, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But the Arab League doesn’t seem to like the genie that they allegedly unleashed. I respect your opinions, Rich, but this can’t possibly come out right and we Americans cannot possibly be seen in a positive light as a result.
Disturber
Apparently the UAE will begin flying in support of the Libyan No-Fly Zone.
Abu Dhabi
UAE Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Highness Sheikh Abdulla bin Zayed Al Nahyan today issued a statement updating the status of the UAE’s participation in support of UN resolution 1973.
He stated that: “In support of UN resolution 1973 The UAE is fully engaged with humanitarian operations in Libya. As an extension of those humanitarian operations the UAE Air Force has committed six F-16 and six Mirage aircraft to participate in the patrols that will enforce the No Fly Zone now established over Libya. UAE Participation in the patrols will commence in the coming days.”
WAM
I wonder if they will fire on their fellow Muslims?
Edited to add:
Captured Gaddafi forces say they were captured first by Gaddafi and ordered, on pain of death, to fire on rebels.
One man said he had seen a few of his fellow rebels killed for refusing to open fire.
That was on TV, Fox News with the man interviewed.
Disturber Actual 2006 census has Benghazi pop. at 670,ooo.The mad Col. unleashes, unabated IOO.OOO could die. Reagan and Obama wanna box this guy I’m onboard.He’s had 42 years.Time to go.
Let me get this straight, rich…. we are not counting those who are not slaughtered, but “may” be slaughtered as your defense now? What was he going to do… put in a bio WMD and wipe out every protestor?
Desperate….
Mata You’re sounding like another supporter of the much maligned and benevolant Col.My guess is with nobody stopping him 100,ooo would just be a warmup.
Oh what a bunch of hooey and BS, rich. I’ve already pointed out in multiple places he’s scum. Frankly, were he standing in front of me, I’d shoot first and ask questions later… right along with getting a good lawyer. Knock it off with the personal assaults that bear no resemblence to reality.
Now would you like to address the real point? Is the new standard for putting US military into harms way, and ticking up the ever declining defense budget, now that Gaddafi “may” have slaughtered, but didn’t, protestors? Or is that like the vague and unproveable “jobs saved” category on the stimulus?
Right now the world gives Gaddafi no decent options…..you know….where he survives.
He can 1) fight to the death,
OR
2) he can give up and be arrested and tried for war crimes then killed or imprisoned for life.
Gee, I wonder why he’s fighting?
NOT!
We have got to make sure he has some exit strategy whereby he can stop the killing and still live as a free man somewhere.
A cornered animal is no less frantic or violent than Gaddafi right now.
Get to work, Hillary.
Huh?
We do?
No, Nan G. Respectfully disagree. The die is cast. Negotiations are not an option because there are none he would accept. He needs to be wiped off the blackboard. Problem is, it’s another “not a war”, with hands tied behind their backs for those fighting that “not a war”.
Good news… if he’s honest… there are no WMDs around for him to use. Don’t know if that includes chem/bio weapons. He does have friends in Syria after all. Perhaps easy and quick access.
Bad news… if he’s not honest… he does have those weapons hidden, and any “new regime” that is most likely not a western democracy in intent will have them.
Too little. Too late. Clusterf*#k demands annihilation of current regime, and hopes that even worse bad guys don’t take charge. But exit strategies and island exiles for Gaddafi are not an option.
Allow me to add… Hillary was not an asset from the beginning. Just a problem in an already problematic and ineffective foreign policy Obama admin.
Mata BHO would have loved to stay out of this.Rebels couldn’t get the job done against G. He was taking revenge and not in a measured way.With paid mercenaries and the full force of his army and air force the mad(many say literally)Col was preparing to kill thousands of his own citizenry.Under pressure from HRC and others like Mac and Repub. hawks Obama gave a better late than never thumbs up.Nick of time for Benghazi.
Nato taking over.No U.S. casualties
More will be revealed
Them’s the facts, Mata.
It is a war that’s not a war.
The UAE is taking up their shift in the flying over that ”no-fly zone.”
They certainly will never ”wipe Gaddafi off the blackboard.”
Since our hands are tied we should also make an out for Gaddafi.
He could live out his last years in Syria or Venesuela.
Whatever his choice.
But if we don’t give him that ”out” he will keep fighting and killing.
Just today a captured fighter told about how Gaddafi forced him to fire against the coalition and rebels.
This man gave an interview saying he saw other men killed at point blank for simply refusing to take Gaddafi’s side in battle.
@ Mata,
“. . . Clusterf*#k demands annihilation of current regime.”
Absolutely agreed, at this point. Perhaps a lucky bunker-buster nails him and his entourage, sending a message to others in the Middle East, Africa and Elsewhere. The effort might then not be a waste of “presence” and loss of “face.” And still, no extraction of a quid pro quo from anyone in the neighbourhood. Sigh.
It’s also great to hear the excuses being made for President Vote-Present’s indecision, on this as on everything else that seems to cross his desk. Repeating the MSNBC mantra of “he didn’t want to do it” is beyond pathetic. If he didn’t want to do it, then he shouldn’t have done it. If Obama thought he should, . . . then do it. Be decisive and set the objectives. They can’t even pretend that he was decisive.
The defence of his lack of strategic plan or objectives by claiming that this would show his hand is disingenuous, given that it immediately became obvious that the “coalition” was confused and as were the U.S. military forces and State and Defence. When an ineffective leader is hiding in South America giving speeches, it’s understandable that there be confusion.
Rich, see my post above at no. 16. BHO was itching to use all that hardware and this gave him the chance. How else can you explain the lack of planning, lack of objective, lack of strategy, lack of consultation with Congress, lack of end game, etc. I think this episode confirms BHO’s shallowness. There is little to him.
Disturber
Disturber I disagree Peace prize winner very reluctant to engage and wants quick exit News from Benghazi and heavy pressure from HRC and hawks pushed him in.The disingenuous Repubs who pushed for him to go in and are now blasting him DESERVE SCORN.
Dang, rich. Thought you read the news. Figured you knew O’zero’s advisors and cabinet appointees. Didn’t know you were on news hiatus for the past weeks, and missed all the Dem and GOP ruckus…. duh
Disturber is correct. All Obama did was wait until his advisors, the UN and Arab League pushed him into action. Now if you think that’s because he’s was averse to any military force, perhaps you have some secret soul mate connection to Obama’s mind that you’re not letting on, and he hasn’t divulged to the press.
Me? You be spouting your usual partisan trash talk, dude…..
Obama tried to steer clear because he likes to avoid controversy and decisions. That’s his history. Finger out of the butt, in the wind for opinion polls, and days later, addresses the problem No different here. It was the same for Honduras, Deepwater Horizon, AZ shooting, Ft. Hood shooting,… the list goes on. “Johnny come lately after polls weigh in” is Obama’s god and middle name.
Me? I see a CiC deer in the headlights. Clueless. Following anyone’s lead, but only after opinion weighs in. Afraid to take the lead.
There is only a modicum of truth in your statement… both GOP and Dems are split on Libya. However those delivering “scorn”, as you say, who are in support of Libya are only whining that it’s too little, too late, and with too little force to accomplish an objective he’s afraid to admit.
The rest of us? We see dumb foreign policy by an inept POTUS/CiC who had no business ever getting the job.
Rich, that is most disingenuous of you. There is no dispute that Hillary and Samantha Powers were the pushers. They are not repubs.
Disturber
Rich, that is most disingenuous of you. Here is an excellent analysis:
http://www.tnr.com/article/against-the-current/85621/libya-iraq-muammar-qaddafi
Disturber
DISTURBER Many Repubs like Mac and Sarah wanted in early and big.
Mata Don’t see the disagreement. He was pushed in late.I would have preferred to see us in once all Americans out.But if he hadn’t gone in at all this Dem would be looking at a Marco Rubio or HRC for PRES.
pray tell what advisors and cabinet members don’t I know I know there was division between Gates ,HRC and others.Be specific
You don’t? LOL
Two major problems with your response.
1: He wasn’t “pushed in” via the Republicans, as you said. Hang, he hasn’t listened to a word they’ve said since his 3 day pre-inaugural victory tour. But that doesn’t stop you from now putting the peer pressure on the wrong party to support your flimsy justification for a seriously bad foreign policy precedent
oh yes, I said cabinet members AND ADVISORS. duh…. So you aren’t aware of these parties who have his ear? Why don’t you go back and read Disturber’s comments. He flat out tells you. And welcome back to the news cycle. Where ya been?
2: As you even admit, he was “pushed in”…. all hail to the wuss who is the “leader of the free world”… “Leader”, my ass.
@rich wheeler: Rich, early, a no fly zone would have enabled the rebels to control most of the country. Obama took too much time to make a decision. When he finally did make a decision, most of the gains were lost already. By then, there was an up hill battle compared to the earlier situation. The secret to success in this operation was the timing. O blew it!
@Randy, #51:
Yeah, Obama should have launched missile strikes during the first days of the Libyan uprising. His political opponents would have immediately gotten behind him on that, I’m sure.
Mata DISTURBER adds Samantha Powers to HRC.That’s it.
To me he did the right thing going in for whatever the reasons.Two days later would have been too late.More battles to come.
Monday morning quarterbacking is sure easy.
@Greg: Greg, O made his mistakes long before Lybia. No one takes him seriously. He needed to publicly warned while he publicly formed a coalition. Instead, he did nothing. Sending missles and bombs are not necessarily what should have been done initially, but O had no credability. Weren’t you the one who was quoting Sun Tzu? If you remember, Lybia turned in much of their WMD production after Bush initiated Iraq. He felt he was next. Bush had credability, O, none! The conseratives are not supporting him because he fails to make timely decisions. Like closing the barn door after the horse is gone!
@Greg:
Oh yes, putting our troops in harms way, spending a ton of money we don’t have and to make it A-OK , he waits until he thinks it’s politicly correct. You prove Mata’s point quite nicely.
So, will the chickenhawks kindly tell us how the White House warrior is going to get Gaddafi and friends “untrenched” from the cities the no-fly arsenol has chased them into without putting boots on the ground? Or is his plan to scoot after the mess has been made the right thing to do? You break it, you bought it?…. think that seesawing coalition of the whatever he put together is going to clean up?
@rich wheeler:
Bit of backround inre Samantha Power:
Her pulitzer prize winning book…copyright…2002:
Obama read her book and contacted her:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/18/samantha_power/index.html
Remembering Power was fired by the Obama campaign for calling Hillary a “monster.” Such a sensitive child, but, like minds(A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide) cannot be separated long…..Obama brought her back to serve in his administration.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/16046.html
Alas! It was Samantha Power that was the behind the scenes pushing Sec. of State Hillary Clinton to push Obama into the unwar. Tee hee, want to buy a bridge? Not that she even needed Hillary to plead the case, but now it’s Hillary’s face all over it which just might come in handy for Obama down the road that leads to 2012, such a guy.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Samantha-Power-Irish-born-aide-key-to-Obama-Libya-attack-policy–118322544.html
Missy Good for Samantha,Ms. Rice and Hillary.Wish they’d pushed even harder.
Would suggest ALL suspend personal animosity towards POTUS and decide if you are with allied forces or the Mad Colonel.Suggestions for improved execution of this conflict always welcome.