Obama and Libya
Options
allreasoned_out
Members Posts: 2,696 ✭✭
Comments
-
Here is one commentary I read.
Darkness Falls
By Leon Wieseltier
March 11, 2011
Barack Obama’s policy toward the Libyan struggle for freedom is no longer a muddle. It is now a disgrace.
Here is what his administration and its allies have told the world, and the Libyan dictator, and the Libyan rebels, in recent days. The director of national intelligence declared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a chilling example of self-fulfilling prophecy, that “over the longer term Qaddafi will prevail.” The secretary of defense continued to insist that the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya is too much for America to do, and to frighten the public with the warning that it would constitute a military operation, as if all military operations are like all other military operations, and therefore the prelude to the sort of wars that would require us, as he put it in an earlier outburst about Iraq and Afghanistan, to have our heads examined. Of course nobody is suggesting that a single American soldier step foot on Libyan soil: Gates’s exaggeration of the logistics and the implications of a no-fly zone, which the Libyan resistance is begging for, is the purest demagoguery, a way of inhibiting the discussion of what really can be done in this plainly just cause, a revival of Powellism, a cheap slippery slope argument tricked out as a responsible concern about the ladder of escalation. The secretary of state, also on Capitol Hill, insisted that a no-fly zone must have the support of some international authority. “Absent international authorization,” she instructed, “the United States acting alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which would be unforeseeable.” Of course the United States, which is after all still the United States, could go and arrange international authorization, as it has sometimes done in the past; but this would require American leadership, and the Obama administration seems to regard American leadership as an early form of American hegemony. It may be, as Clinton said, that the consequences of a no-fly zone would be unforeseeable, but the consequences of the absence of a no-fly zone are entirely foreseeable. They are even seeable. We see them daily, most recently in the massacre at Zawiyah. And in a press briefing prior to the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels, the secretary general of the alliance began by intoning that “the whole world is watching” and then announced that “NATO has no intention to intervene in Libya.” He did not grasp the heartless illogic of what he said—though if his remark could be construed as saying that the whole world is watching NATO have no intention to intervene in Libya, there was some truth to it. And he followed with these unforgettable observations: “If these systematic attacks against the Libyan people continue it may amount to a crime against humanity. And many people around the world may be tempted to say let’s do something to prevent this massacre against the Libyan civilian population.” Some of us may indeed be so tempted. But “on the other hand,” Rasmussen continued, “there are a lot of sensitivities in the region as far as foreign military intervention is concerned, or what might be considered a foreign military intervention.” Get it? We will not act to prevent a crime against humanity because by doing so we will offend—who, exactly? Not the Libyans who are clamoring for Western assistance, or the Egyptians who looked to us for unequivocal support in their fight for freedom, or the Iranians who made a similar mistake. No, we will offend only a certain doctrinaire Western notion of what the contemporary Arab world thinks about the West, a notion that the democratic upheavals in the Arab world are making manifestly obsolete. We will offend not their assumptions, but our assumptions about their assumptions. It was no wonder that Gates, when he emerged from the meeting in Brussels, told reporters that whereas NATO planning for the possibility of a no-fly zone would continue, “that’s the extent of it.” We are only planning. Why don’t these people just come right out and tell the Libyan resistance to drink poison? Perhaps they fear that they may then have to provide the poison.
In sum, the situation is ominous. Darkness is descending on the Libyan struggle for freedom, and we are helping to lower it. While the various secretaries were articulating their abdications, Qaddafi was committing a slaughter in Zawiyah and employing his monopoly of the skies to drive the rebels out of Ras Lanuf. An eastern offensive is clearly imminent. (This is not a civil war. This is a war by a dictator upon his people. There is no other half of the Libyan population fighting for Qaddafi.) All this, of course, affects the sensitivities of the Libyan freedom fighters. “We’re waiting for the Americans to follow,” a rebel spokesman bitterly told Anthony Shadid and David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times about Sarkozy’s splendid decision to recognize the Libyan provisional government. (Morally America now lags behind France!) Shadid and Kirkpatrick also reported that “as NATO member nations met in Brussels to discuss options for Libya, the rebels cursed the United States and its allies for failing to impose a no-flight zone.” Why is the White House content to foment this variety of anti-Americanism? The answer is that it is so haunted by past Arab anger at American action in the Middle East that it cannot recognize present Arab anger at American inaction in the Middle East.
And the president? He declares that Qaddafi must go and that we will stand with the Libyan people, and then he does nothing. No, that’s not right. He consults and consults, and his staff works round the clock, and economic sanctions are instituted against the rampaging dictator who has tens of billions of dollars in cash. Obama is prepared to act, just not consequentially. He does not want the responsibility for any Arab outcome. He says they must do it for themselves. But they are doing it for themselves. They merely need help. And the help they need is easy for us to provide. (Jam their ? communications.) And their cause is freedom, which is allegedly our cause. What they seek from Obama is an extended hand. What they are getting is a clenched fist. If Muammar Qaddafi takes Benghazi, it will be Barack Obama’s responsibility. That is what it means to be the American president. The American president cannot but affect the outcome. That is his burden and his privilege. He has the power to stop such an atrocity, so if the atrocity is not stopped it will be because he chose not to use his power. Perhaps that is why Obama has been telling people, rather tastelessly, that it would be easier to be the president of China. Obama will not be rushed. He is a man of the long game. But the Libyan struggle for freedom, and the mission of rescue, is a short game. That is the temporality of such circumstances. If you do not act swiftly, you have misunderstood the situation. Delay means disaster. Does Obama have any idea of what Qaddafi’s victory will mean for the region and its awakening?
We have flinched this way before. For many days I have had a sickening 1992–1995 feeling. Consider these sentences, from a book I lugubriously took off my shelf: “Why does the United States stand so idly by? The most common answer is, ‘We didn’t know.’ This is not true. … A second response to the question of why the United States did so little is that it could not have done much to stop the horrors. [But] the only way to ascertain the consequences of U.S. diplomatic, economic, or military measures would have been to undertake them. … If anything testifies to the U.S. capacity for influence, it is the extent to which the perpetrators kept an eye trained on Washington and other Western capitals as they decided how to proceed. … The real reason the United States did not do what it could and should have done to stop genocide was not a lack of knowledge or influence but a lack of will. Simply put, American leaders did not act because they did not want to.” The Libyan calamity is not genocide, but genocide is not the only horror that has a claim on American agency. I have taken those wise sentences from "A Problem from Hell," Samantha Power’s sad, great study of earlier American failures to act against mass-murdering tyrants. Is Obama now writing his own chapter in that story? Why do we not still remember that story? It is disgusting, as the Libyan rebels are driven further and further back, to learn that we must discover it all over again.
Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85098/obama-libya-policy-qaddafi-disgrace -
Obama is handling Libya in a very good way. We're already losing bad in Iraq and Afghanistan, why use our horrible excuse of a military that can't even beat a third world enemy?
Obama is smart enough to know a fly zone will be used against America by people in the Middle East who already hate us (with good reason). ? a no fly zone, let the Arabs or Europeans take care of this situation. America has enough problems of its own. -
What's going on in Libya is a civil war. Obama doesn't have the right to interfere and the Libyan rebels have requested that foreign powers stay out of it. So, anyone suggesting Obama is doing a bad job in this is stupid. It's not the role of the U.S. to stick our noses in everyone's internal problems without request. Not to mention that half the evil dictators in the world now are there because of what the U.S. and Europe have done.
-
I totally agree.....but, what about this? IMO it's the classic damn if we do and damn if we don't.
Just a week ago, suggestions of Western intervention were met with outright hostility. But these days the response is more ambivalent, as the struggle between pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces reaches a standoff and the suffering of those who live in cities that are still under Gadhafi control seems crueler every day.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/02/3441967/libyan-rebel-fighters-reluctant.html#ixzz1GrqH76y2
lol Well, yeah, that makes sense. Of course they were like "Screw you" when they thought they were going to win. It's a little bit harder to hold that attitude when the tide turns against you. As far as I know, the people of Libya still haven't make a formal request for help though, so why should anyone be knocking Obama cause he's not trying to elbow his way into another country's affairs. -
I agree with posts in this thread so far. I'm against any kind of western intervention save for freezing assets and targeted sanctions, and that's basically what he's done, so even though as usual I wish he'd show some semblance of conviction, I basically think he's doing the right thing on the policy end.
-
The only reason why should intervene in Libya isn't to give those muthafuckas freedom, but to get some "get back," from when Mommar was actin' a fool in the 80's, also to get the Pan Am ? . Go in, ? those two ? , then bounce.
-
i don't think you actually know as much about our military as you think you dokingblaze84 wrote: »Obama is handling Libya in a very good way. We're already losing bad in Iraq and Afghanistan, why use our horrible excuse of a military that can't even beat a third world enemy?
but that being said... European and Arab nations don't have aircraft THEY can use to impose a no-fly zone? hmmm -
No fly zone authorized:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131720311168561.html
The actual resolution:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution -
Arab League wants "no fly zone" .... wants to dispose of Quaddafi.
Does Arab League want more "Democracy and human rights" in Lybia ? Hmmm ? I don't think so.
France, that previously did not allow US planes on way to bomb Quaddafi, also wants USA to enforce "no fly zone."
Few hours ago UNations OKed "no fly zone". Five nations that could have vetoed, instead abstained.
Why should they keep USA from further trapping itself in ANOTHER MidEast conflict/war ?
Arab League got what it wanted. Evidently USA will help enforce "no fly zone." Expect USA to do the heavy lifting.
Looks to me like Barak Hussain Obama, darling of leftist and liberals and socalled "minorities"
is working for/with the Arab League. Feel free to explain to me how/why I'm wrong.
I'm all ears. -
John Prewett wrote: »Arab League wants "no fly zone" .... wants to dispose of Quaddafi.
Does Arab League want more "Democracy and human rights" in Lybia ? Hmmm ? I don't think so.
France, that previously did not allow US planes on way to bomb Quaddafi, also wants USA to enforce "no fly zone."
Few hours ago UNations OKed "no fly zone". Five nations that could have vetoed, instead abstained.
Why should they keep USA from further trapping itself in ANOTHER MidEast conflict/war ?
Arab League got what it wanted. Evidently USA will help enforce "no fly zone." Expect USA to do the heavy lifting.
Looks to me like Barak Hussain Obama, darling of leftist and liberals and socalled "minorities"
is working for/with the Arab League. Feel free to explain to me how/why I'm wrong.
I'm all ears.
What? So Obama supports something that is supported by several other leaders in the western world and was one of the few things requested by the Libyan rebels, and he's following the Arab agenda just because the Arab League suports it too? Ok... -
well uh...looks like we will be in Libya
-
On ? damn it they never learn.Stay the ? outta peoples problems.
-
So what happens when protesters in other countries use this as the standard for liberation???? Yemen? Bahrain? Algeria? Syria? I'm all for helping but this is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
-
So-Called minorities? What an idiot.socalled "minorities"
Minorities ARE in fact a...MINORITY ? . You cant be sarcastic with the TRUTH. Putting quotes around it like a ? .
And This is all ? . We're not going to protect those ? because of the civilian deaths. If we gave a ? about civilians we'd not have let the genocide in Darfur carry on...and on...and on and the only thing we do is give a few speeches to the UN about it and chatter on about "awareness." All the sudden we give a ? about Libyans?
Arent they the country with the purest oil or something? Pretty sure our government "even with a black president" didnt grow a ? humanitarian heart over night. -
obama would do the same ? if some armed group started kicking up dust domestically. it would just be cleaner and more efficient- western style. Mark my words...it will eventually come down to some ? like that after the coalition forces make Qaddafi a martyr.
-
Wow I can't believe that passed through the SC... I don't think it's a bad idea if there's an int'l consensus.
-
There comes a time when history keeps repeating itself over and over. Like Iraq,Afghanistan both proven to be not necessary and bogus from the get go. Now here we are again facing the same kind of end results if we enter Libya, actually any North African country or the region of the ME which is about to implode. President Obama might actually stay out of them Muslim countries? -- unlike so many of his predecessors. thumbs-up for his courage, to NOT go there. I hear echoes from the past, Gen Powell saying to bush don't go there. IE Iraq
from what i understand from his statements on cnn he's finna go there. no fly dont mean ? . the snipers and tanks been in place for a while. he committed to action and im telling u now somebody get on the ground in libya to oust dude. -
i don't think you actually know as much about our military as you think you do
but that being said... European and Arab nations don't have aircraft THEY can use to impose a no-fly zone? hmmm
Am I lying when I say that the American military is losing bad in Afghanistan and Iraq?? Our military is like a big dumb bear that can ? a lot of mosquitoes and take out the head guy in charge, but will be overwhelmed by the mosquitoes in the end. It can beat up anyone one on one, but it wins only in the short term, not long term.
I'm not impressed with our winning ratio since the Vietnam War. We still have the largest and strongest force by far, but it's not very efficient. And for the record, Obama made a big mistake fighting in Libya tonight. Watch another Afghanistan come in our hands now. Ok, it won't be THAT bad. But close. -
I take back what I said about Obama handling this situation well. He's ? up again.........
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »I take back what I said about Obama handling this situation well. He's ? up again.........
For all of Obama's screwups, one thing that his defenders could always say is that at least he hasn't started any ridiculously stupid wars in the Middle East.
Wait for it...... -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Am I lying when I say that the American military is losing bad in Afghanistan and Iraq?? Our military is like a big dumb bear that can ? a lot of mosquitoes and take out the head guy in charge, but will be overwhelmed by the mosquitoes in the end. It can beat up anyone one on one, but it wins only in the short term, not long term.
I'm not impressed with our winning ratio since the Vietnam War. We still have the largest and strongest force by far, but it's not very efficient. And for the record, Obama made a big mistake fighting in Libya tonight. Watch another Afghanistan come in our hands now. Ok, it won't be THAT bad. But close.
USA military problem [Vietnam and now MidEast] is: Soldiers are not mind readers.
They can walk past group of locals,...
and have no idea whether or not those locals are fairly harmless,....
or are about to pull weapons from beneath their robes and fire away.
Amerian soldies can't read minds of their Afghan/Iraq MOslem "allies."
And every few weeks we read of some American [or canada, german etc] soldiers shot in back by Afghan/Iraq allies.
"rules of engagement" play a great role.
It would be easy to just ? every young man found in a given locality,....
but that ain't allowed [nor should it be].
The locals that are waging war against USA [and allies]
are smart enough to keep weapons out of sight till the "right" time,...
[solution for many previous armies was "? them all and let ? sort them out",
.... that's the easy ruthless way. -
shootemwon wrote: »For all of Obama's screwups, one thing that his defenders could always say is that at least he hasn't started any ridiculously stupid wars in the Middle East.
Wait for it......
so now will they say the Arab League and United Nations "started it",.... ?? -
Look, they never gave a ? about Palestine, Sudan etc, the UN founded Israel for christ sake lol
So everytime some 'international backed' coupe comes in to 'help out the people/bring justice etc' I dont believe they are there for moral/noble reasons. This is just selective ? . It happens to be a earthly resources rich country again.
Really ? the UN. I want peace and freedom for all, I follow this stuff everyday, but there is to much bloodshed right now and the UN (Once again) is being used as a tool by (the French/UK/US) to get their own agendas arranged. The 'allied' forces have already bombed innocent people, they will denie this offcourse but thank ? for al jazeera/al arabiya
last couple of days have been top notch propoganda by the French/US. -
And its official : The Arab Liga has condemned the actions, saying the French/UK/US forces did not keep their agreement and targeted civilian areas as well, killing civilians. The Russians also condemned their actions. Libyan state propoganda also adresses this but they would have said the same ? even if they didnt target civilian areas.
and heyslick: I'm not even discussing the Palestine/Israel situation with u. 8% of the population got over 50% of the land back than via the UN, allmost a million people (natives) were kicked out of their houses. the whole creation of Israel was ? and only idiots would think that the natives of the land in Palestine were cool with getting over half their land taken away from them and getting kicked out of their land. If me and my fam would move in your house, kick half of your family out and would make you live in the garden you wouldnt be cool with it to so stop this ? . Take a look at the map, Palestine doesnt even exist nowadays, Israel has annexed over 80% of the land if not more and continou to do so. -
Nobama is a war mongering zionist pig just like bushit was.
