Jim Webb Critical of Libya Operation

Damn straight (0.00 / 0)

We do not need a 3rd war. I thought we are so broke? OUR people are living in boxes, OUR people are unemployed, OUR PEOPLE ARE HUNGRY, I mean WTF??? We cannot be the policemen of the world while we have our own crisis going on here at home. Libya poses NO THREAT to us.

This infuriates me.

---

by: VADEM @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 19:32:08 PM UTC

Not so STRAIGHT .... (0.00 / 0)

While I can agree with Senator Webb and embrace your sentiments at face value, I think about where the Libyan opposition would be right now ... without the airstrikes and no-fly zone.

They would be looking at the barrel of a gun pointed at their heads. Qaddafi was set to massacre the rebel opposition and anyone (or nation) remotely connected to it.

He's got to go. If for no other reason ... the ordering of the Lockerbie Airline bombings.

The U.S. should not be leading on this .... and I believe the President tried to stay out of it ... based on good advice from both the Pentagon & State Department.

But then you have a Dictator who has lost control of his nation to a rising tide of populist (netroots driven) revolution .... Qaddafi, a thug  who would exterminate any in opposition to his hold on power.

In this instance, I'm with the President and I expect the military's role will be one of leveling the "playing" field. Without air support and heavy weapons Qaddafi is toast at the hands of his own countrymen.

---

by: Say What @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 20:10:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Justification? (0.00 / 0)

Is the rule that all wars going forward must be justified with a reference to something that occurred in the late 1980s?

So Saddam had to go because of the chemical attacks during 1988, and now we have Qaddafi being removed because of Lockerbie. What's next? Another Iran Contra?

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 20:19:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What would you do??? (0.00 / 0)

A popular uprising occurs with democratic aspirations ... the dictator holds on (instead of taking a long vacation to ... let's say Venezuela ) and is prepared to massacre thousands of people.

You as the President of the United States ... and leader of free world ... can do nothing (and let it all play out to a horrid conclusion) ... or take some very measured action to level the playing field.

As far as the terrorist incident of the 1980s goes .... tell that to the families who lost their kids on that airplane.

In all ... Obama laid out his long and deliberate thoughts on the matter and took action. All things considered ... I think he did exactly the right thing in regards to Libya ... and for that matter ... Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain .. Jordon.  Each case is different as is our involvement.

The President didn't create this crisis and his response is very measured. Congress can take this up (if they like) when back from recess.

March Madness ... don't you love it.  

---

by: Say What @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 21:08:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reality (0.00 / 0)

This wasn't a popular uprising with democratic aspirations. It was a regional uprising with support among tribal and ethnic groups that have long been opposed to his regimes. Other tribal and ethnic groups stayed loyal to Qaddafi.

This is a civil war. People die in wars. The fact that there is violence is not enough to justify US intervention.

As it stands, I feel like France and Britain were ready to intervene without our assistance. Let them handle it.

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 22:15:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Webb is spot on (0.00 / 0)

Webb's comment that "we have not put this issue in front of the American people in any meaningful way," is, for me, the crux of the matter.

I don't fully understand what our interests are here. I get it that Quaddafi is a bad guy who is killing his own people, but so are the leaders of Bahrain and Yemen, and we're certainly not going to bomb those countries. So, whatever moral revulsion we feel at this guy is not the real basis for military action.

I can;t figure out why Obama is doing this.

---

by: aznew @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 21:11:30 PM UTC

The thing I don't understand about Webb (0.00 / 0)

is that he's still gung-ho about the Vietnam War, yet that had no exit strategy, no defined mission, no clear reason for being there, etc., etc. In fact, the Vietnam War is largely what led to the Powell Doctrine, which I agree with for the most part. Having said that, the world isn't black and white, it's an extremely murky/"grey" place. As far as I'm concerned, we should act when: 1) it's in our interests (broadly defined) to do so; 2) we have the ability/"tools" to do so; 3) we have a good/strong reason to do so; 4) we have support from allies, if at all possible; 5) we have an exit strategy.  In this case, I'd say that #1 is partly satisfied, #2 is largely satisfied, #3 is a question mark but I agree with preventing a humanitarian slaughter and also with getting rid of an evil murderer of many Americans, #4 is largely satisfied, #5 is the BIG question, what happens next exactly and how do we get out of this if it turns into a protracted civil war, for instance?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 22:12:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How so? (0.00 / 0)

I'd be interested in how you define our interests broadly as to somewhat satisfy number 1.  

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 22:16:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our interests broadly defined (0.00 / 0)

include political, economic, and many others (there's been tons of discussion, debate, and analysis on this over the years; also, America has defined its interests quite differently over time -- many examples here, too numerous to mention). Personally, I'd include promotion of democracy and protection of human rights (e.g., preventing genocide/slaughter of civilians) as among our "interests," although in the vast majority of cases we should go about doing so via diplomatic means. In this case, clearly Qaddafi would have slaughtered his opponents, both armed and unarmed, and clearly we had the ability to prevent it. Whether or not that was in our "interests" is the question. As I said, I see condition #1 as "partly satisfied."

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 22:30:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also interesting about Webb (0.00 / 0)

He was in the Reagan Administration the last time we bombed Libya, back in 1986. We also were heavily involved militarily in Latin America during that period. I don't recall any particular "exit strategy" at the time, nor do I recall that several of the other conditions Webb's raising now (including Congressional authorization; in fact, quite the opposite!) were particularly clear.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 23:17:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

still gung-ho about the Vietnam War?? (0.00 / 0)

My opinion is that Webb is less "gung-ho" about the Viet Nam War than he is a passionate champion for those who fought the Viet Nam War and were widely blamed for everything that went wrong.

He has said, "I killed men that I did not hate for politicians that I did not love!"

---

by: buzzbolt @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 23:37:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When I saw him at the National Press Club (0.00 / 0)

in March 2007, he clearly said that he was still gung-ho on the Vietnam War.  Here's what Webb said (around 37 minutes):

...I don't believe that there are parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. I may be one of the few people in the Congress who still strongly supports the Vietnam War. I believe that the logic for the Vietnam War was sustainable, and I believe that the American people, in spite of the way we look back at Vietnam, also agreed that the political logic for Vietnam was sustainable, even though the way that we fought the war was not sustainable. And one of the most striking statistics on that is one I used in my last book, where the Harris survey in August of 1972 -- this is 8 years after the Gulf of Tonkin -- reported that the American people still agreed, by a margin of 74%-11%, that it was important that South Vietnam not fall to the communists. So, we had a basic understanding in this country that however badly the strategic operations in Vietnam went, there was a larger issue in play.

 

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 23:59:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our interests, broadly defined (0.00 / 0)

Generally, your criteria sound reasonable, but the devil is, as they say, in the details.

Using your criteria, can you explain why our intervention is warranted in, say, Libya, but not in Bahrain? The only difference I can see is that the ruling family in Bahrain are our evil murderers, thanks to our naval base there.

What is our interest in Libya, broadly defined?

As for a good, strong reason, If it is saving lives and getting rid of an evil leader, don't we have the same reason for preventing slaughter in civil wars in Africa, where the carnage, frankly, is much worse, and the leaders seem in some cases to be more depraved?

This is Iraq all over again, from what I can tell.  

---

by: aznew @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 23:53:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Complicating factors in Bahrain include (0.00 / 0)

1. Persian Gulf oil flows
2. Saudi Arabia
3. U.S. naval base in the country
4. Iran
5. Iran
6. Did I mention Iran?
7. Shi'a majority in Bahrain, right next door to majority Shi'a Iran.
8. Shi'a majority in Bahrain, right next door to Shi'a population in eastern Saudi Arabia (oil producing region).
9. Much further away from NATO, much more difficult militarily to do anything there, particularly with allies, compared to Libya.

I'm sure there are others that haven't popped into my head.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 00:02:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As for the "consistency" argument (0.00 / 0)

the way I put it to a friend of mine is that it's a very weak argument, essentially to either do nothing anywhere or everything everywhere.  Instead, IMHO, we should always be looking carefully at each situation with an eye towards how interests, opportunities, capabilities, etc. come together. Then, we should carefully consider whether or not it's appropriate for us to act, and if so, how exactly. In other words, international relations is complicated and should never be boiled down to simple/simplistic rules, including demands for "excessive consistency" (the hobgoblin of small minds, as the saying goes...).

My friend's response? "Yep, I totally agree with this.  When Obama says you have to take a case-by-case approach, it's treated as lack of a doctrine.  But it's the right realist/pragmatist approach."

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 00:04:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

generally concur with consistency argument... (0.00 / 0)

... if you can do the right thing in one place but not the other, still worth it in the former instance.  as i commented the other day, i just question whether the means/form of intervention will have desired effect.  

i think we can sorta four-box this: military intervention with success (gadhafi gone); mil intervention w/o success (he sticks it out); no mil intervention but success; no mil intervention and no success.  

now from those four corners, i define best case as no intervention but success, a la tunisia and egypt.  with intervention and no success an unmitigated disaster.  the middle two cases are murkier: my biggest worry about the current action is that, even successful, it delegitimizes the other popular movements, regional autocrats use it to paint their own domestic unrest as tools of the west.  

in the final case of gadhafi prevailing while the world does nothing, obviously i've heard the constant chatter in the media of another humanitarian disaster -- but i worry samantha power and her new strange bedfellow, secretary clinton (this has been quite the strange alignment, must say), are "fighting the last war," so to speak, in terms of the '90s (bosnia, rwanda, followed by what was considered a success in kosovo, though i wasn't a fan of that action either, as we used effects-based bombing on serbia -- see wiki civilian casualty cite in comment a few days ago).  to address samantha power's counterfactuals (aka worse if we don't act), what is a successful humanitarian intervention ratio?  1,000 dead civilians vs. 10,000?  1:10?  larger?  smaller?  

as with lowell, i predicate u.s. "interests" on saving lives and promoting democracy.  a robust blue helmet presence, say, inserted and deployed in a perimeter around a rump state in benghazi, strikes me as a vastly superior intervention, one that demonstrates americans and europeans willing to sacrifice for libyans, yet our aggregate publics have not the stomach for it.  not that i blame them after the last decade of bush adventurism, but again, the means matter.  sadly yet profoundly, you bleed WITH people, that's how hearts and minds are won.  

p.s. lowell, we must use all diplomatic levers at our disposal to get the saudis et al out of bahrain (and for that matter, dump saleh in yemen, getting out in front of that one would help in future coordination against AQ) -- there is one big particular case where the hypocrisy does matter: the arab street.  if different grassroots movements see us turning a blind eye towards our client states, that doesn't dispose them well towards us when and if they come to power.  also, i'm not as afraid of iran as you seem to be -- at the risk of threadjacking, willing to unpack that aspect a bit more if you'd like.  

---

by: leftspace13 @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 05:49:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In front of the American people?? (0.00 / 0)

The American people have no choice but to "follow the leader" when it comes to our military intervention in conflicts around the world.   The will of the American people is presently never sought and is sure to be absent before the shooting starts.

The last effective "anti-war" movement in this country began as an "anti-draft" movement conducted by those who were eligible to be drafted and sent to unpopular wars.

I don't think any political leader involved in eliminating the draft was clever enough to think that future war protests would so effectively and permanently be neutralized if not canceled.

...

---

by: buzzbolt @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 23:25:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm generally with the president on this issue (0.00 / 0)

I'm usually very cautious when it comes to military intervention anywhere, but in this case I think it is better than the other options. The way I see it, we can either not intervene and run the risk of this becoming something like another Bosnia or Rwanda, or intervene and prevent the rebels from being massacred by Gaddafi's  forces. The prevention of mass killings of the rebels seems worth the cost of intervention.

That said, I do agree with some of Webb's criticisms. The thing about congress needing to be involved with this is spot on. And I agree that we need to have a clear mission and endpoint. I acctually think Obama has been pretty good with this so far. It's been made clear that the goal is to enforce aceasefire and the specific terms of the UN resolution, not regime change or a long occupation. Now we just need to make sure to stick to those parameters.

---

by: drobertson @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 21:46:47 PM UTC

Today's NY Times editorial (0.00 / 0)

Interesting reasoning:

There is no perfect formula for military intervention. It must be used sparingly - not in Bahrain or Yemen, even though we condemn the violence against protesters in both countries. Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 10:34:23 AM UTC

Netroots Rising.... (0.00 / 0)

Earlier in this thread I received criticism that this was not a "pro-democracy" movement. After watching the News Hour with Jim Lehrer ... who had Brent Scowcroft & Zbigniew Brzezinski on ... it was fascinating to hear Scowcroft talk about the "new" world order that is revolving around the internet and the organizational power it affords the disenfranchised.

What is happening in the Middle East right now .... across the region is a populist uprising, cemented in modern communications which collectively represents a pro-democracy movement.

Nice to see the New York Times sees it that way.

Of course the Chinese do as well .... hence their active control and manipulation of the internet (Google's G-Mail now a target).

It would appear that a great many people have learned the lessons recanted in Netroots Rising.  Way to go Blue Virginia.

---

by: Say What @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 12:01:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You might be interested in reading (0.00 / 0)

"The Economics of Dissent: How Twitter and Facebook Tipped the Revolutionary Equation". Fascinating.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 12:04:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A very interesting piece .... (0.00 / 0)

I would add that the internet communications "revolution" is also the CORE reason it's been so easy to export manufacturing jobs overseas.

It not only lets us export our democratic system of sorts .... but also jobs to people who are willing and able to work for MUCH LESS.

The internet .... cause for our Clinton years booms & Bush years bust. A two edge sword.  

---

by: Say What @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:28:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to put too fine a point on it.... (0.00 / 0)

But when Webb served in the executive branch, he seems to have been pretty comfortable with the authority that he was given to act as he thought we should.  Now that he's in the legislative branch, he's not as comfortable with that same lack of authority.  That's understandable (and plenty of people who have moved from one to the other have felt this way) but that's how I personally take a lot of what he's saying.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 17:52:14 PM UTC

And, as always... (0.00 / 0)

IOKIYAR

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 19:07:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course... (0.00 / 0)

...because everyone knows Dems are nothing but hippy-dippy Doves who want to create a 'Peace Department".  (eye roll)

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 21:30:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So (4.00 / 1)

Obama takes flak for deferring to Congress on the health care negotiations instead of showing strong leadership and taking the lead.  On Libya, Obama takes flak for showing strong leadership and taking the lead instead of deferring to Congress.

If Obama starting crapping gold, Republicans would complain that he should be crapping out diamonds instead, and Democrats would complain that the gold is too bold of a substance and he should pass humble silver instead.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 21:09:01 PM UTC

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

It's completely ridiculous.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 22, 2011 at 21:30:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While I agree Obama will get trashed whatever he does... (0.00 / 0)

...You gotta give much of the blame for that to James Madison and company for creating a balance of powers. I mean, it's how the system works and how it protects us from growing our own dictators -- thankfully.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:26:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]