No One Listens to the President

Thank You! (0.00 / 0)

At last, a fresh voice saying what should be evident to all. President Obama has never pretended to be a strong  progressive. He is a centrist-left politician who actually believes that democracy only works when people are willing to compromise and find common ground (Eek...radical idea...)

I also believe that he is trying - in his own deliberate, non-emotional way - to turn around the ship of state that has dragged the United States into being the "policeman of the world."

Then, there is the fact that Barack Obama did not get where he is today by seeking confrontation with the corporate elite that provides the money that greases the wheels of politics in this country.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 22:30:40 PM UTC

Transcript of President Obama's speech (0.00 / 0)

The President's Address to the Nation on Libya - As Prepared for Delivery
National Defense University
Washington, DC
March 28, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery-

Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya - what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt - two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant - Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world - including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Gaddafi's grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, "For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over."

Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people.  As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi's aggression.  We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world's condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi's troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies - nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey - all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role - including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation - to our military, and to American taxpayers - will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us - it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and - more importantly - a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all - even in limited ways - in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country - Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya - and the world - will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces - to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone - carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do.  If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do - and will do - is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they're in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That's the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States - in a region that has such a difficult history with our country - this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, "We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies."

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one's own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith - those ideals - that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas - when the news is filled with conflict and change - it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star - the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 23:43:20 PM UTC

This speech sums up my thoughts and feelings (0.00 / 0)

almost exactly. Nice job, President Obama!

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 23:56:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Job, Mr.President! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 00:07:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you! (0.00 / 0)

I took to reading all presidential speeches a few years ago -- I wanted to be informed and language really matters to me and I think we should pay attention to it.  But watching it television and all of the commentary afterwards wasn't helping me with either of those two goals.

This speech in particular really spoke to me.  It's such a complicated issue, and one that is very emotional for many people.  I respect those who disagree with me, and am grateful that the president set things out the way he did.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:30:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great job, Mr. President. (0.00 / 0)

Everyone should understand your motivation and reasoning for this intervention.  But alas, what will the talking heads say next?

---

by: pontoon @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 00:14:46 AM UTC

A great informative speech... (0.00 / 0)

I turned off the tv as as soon as it was over. they said they were going to tell us what he said.
well, I just heard them with my own two ears and I know what he said..
turn off the corporate media...

---

by: linda b @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:03:07 AM UTC

Not convinced (4.00 / 1)

I'll post a longer comment tomorrow, but my initial reaction is this:  If America does not want to be the world's policeman, then stop acting like one.  I am, alas, an opponent of presidential initiation of war.  I do not believe the war powers, as allocated by the constitution, permit this kind of excursion without prior congressional approval.  It is very easy to start a war, but as we have seen time and again, much more difficult to end one.  

How will this one end?  I listened to the president.  I still don't know the answer, and worse, it seems, neither does he.

Yeah, maybe I projected my own values on candidate Obama.  Maybe I thought hope and change meant something more than it has.  But I think I had some reason.  I listened to what candidate Obama said then.  And what he said in 2007 was this:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

So forgive me if this intervention has me a little flummoxed.  I didn't support our invading Iraq and I don't support this.  Perhaps the ends will justify the means, but as someone who cares deeply about the means and the ends, I'm bound to be disappointed.

---

by: Jason @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 04:13:36 AM UTC

This is almost completely different than Iraq (0.00 / 0)

Given that, I'm not sure how the case of Iraq has almost any relevance here.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:04:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

The parallels and risks to American security are quite similar:
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abum...

The precise circumstances of each nation we invade is not the point.  Let's assume the following premises, from the article linked above:

  1. No matter what anyone else says, the United States and its allies are at war in Libya.
  2. The United States has very few interests in Libya.
  3. Unlike with respect to Afghanistan in 2009, the Obama Administration went to war in Libya without a deliberate planning process that forced policy makers to articulate U.S. interests, goals and assumptions. This helps to explain why the administration has had so much difficulty articulating, for the American people, our interests in, goals toward and assumptions about Libya.
  4. Now that we're in this mess, a policy of regime change in Libya makes the most sense.
  5. We see two possible outcomes in Libya: either a rapid collapse of the regime, or a stalemate. We assess the latter as more likely.
  6. In order to avoid the latter and in light of U.S. interests, we believe the United States should establish a structure of incentives to get Moammar Gadhafi to leave. Kinetic military action by U.S. forces is not part of our proposed incentive structure. In fact, we think the United States should halt direct military action and work to broaden the international coalition to include more countries who do have interests in Libya.
  7. We should be prepared to accept the status quo antebellum, though. Why? See #2.

Now you may think this is the kind of circumstances where American military intervention is necessary or appropriate.  I think it is reckless and wrong-headed.  In the long term, I support a fundamentally different approach to the use of U.S. military force abroad.  

---

by: Jason @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:21:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few major differences between Iraq and Libya (4.00 / 1)

1. Iraq involved an enormous commitment of ground forces, Libya involves ZERO commitment of ground forces.
2. We occupied Iraq, we will not be occupying Libya.
3. There was no active rebellion in Iraq, there is in Libya.
4. There was no UN Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq, there is in this case.
5. There was no real international coalition against Iraq, there is in this case.
6. Iraq was undertaken in the midst of post-9/11 hysteria, Libya is taking place in a completely different context.
7. Iraq was a classic case of mismatch between military resources required and military resources allocated. That's not the case with Libya.
8. Iraq was a multi-year endeavor, Libya will be multi-weeks or multi-months at most.
9. Iraq cost $1 trillion or more, Libya will cost a few billion most likely.
10. There was an imminent humanitarian disaster that WE COULD EASILY PREVENT in Libya, that was not the case in Iraq.

There are many more differences, but that will do for now.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:33:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, then, spell it out (4.00 / 1)

You want a different approach? What would it be?  Put yourself in Obama's shoes. There's a vast humanitarian catastrophe in early progress in a country dominated by a madman who spent much of the 70s and 80s ordering terrorist hits on Western European and American targets and fostering terrorist training academies in the Libyan desert.  Said madman is impervious to sanctions, stern warnings to stop his massacres of not only civilians but his own military who refused to attack civilians, and has access to huge piles of money and lots of weapons (some of which, admittedly, came from us). The madman has gone on TV and declared his intention to march to a city of 700,000 people where upon arrival he will go from door to door killing the "rats" who dared oppose him. He proves he's serious by launching artillery strikes not only on that city, but upon others, and he strafes and bombs these places with planes and helicopters.  It's indisputable that a whole lot of innocent people, many of them women and children, are going to get dead in a very big hurry, as soon as he's able to breach the town's wavering defenses and get inside.  

What do you do?  It's as the President said last night - we can't intervene in every situation, nor should we, but every once in a while a situation cries out for immediate action.  You as President know that it's not only this country but many others in the region which are dominated by oppressive dictators. They're in upheaval and a couple of them have fallen rather spectacularly and have taken nascent steps toward democracy. But others are still on the fence. Others are watching the situation and wondering how much force they could get by with in refusing their people's complaints.  Where are the two countries where these nascent steps are being taken? They border Libya.  There is no question that a Qaddafi victory would create a humanitarian catastrophe for these two struggling countries because they would be overwhelmed with refugees straining their resources and destabilizing them further.  

You appear to be saying we should just stand back and let it happen.  How does this benefit us? What happens then? Think everything will just settle down after a few hundred thousand dead?  It doesn't look like it to me and I doubt it looked like that to the President.  

What's YOUR solution and why would it be better than what the President is doing right now?

---

by: Catzmaw @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:45:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will spell it out then (0.00 / 0)

The U.S. should have put forth the economic sanctions that Obama has put on Libya, curtailing the flow of money and weapons, and then wait and see how events played out. Pretty much the stand that the president took with Egypt, minus the economic sanctions.

If there was a potentially atrocity in the horizon, act, but making no declarations about how Gaddafi has to step down; it was just an action to prevent massive deaths.

That way, whether Gaddafi won or not, the U.S. had flexibility to side with the winner.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:21:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree, Jason (0.00 / 0)

Right now the goal is to remove Gaddafi. What will happen after that goal is achieved? What are we going to do if a faction that the U.S. dislikes takes over the government? How are we going to keep the peace if the armed factions start fighting among each other?

We are talking about another occupation and nation building project that can also go horribly wrong. After all, the loyalist in the Gaddafi army are armed, and the rebels are armed as well, with plenty of countries around them happy to give them more weapons to keep the chaos going to eliminate Lybia as a regional threat.

And all for what? Gaddafi, as a threat to the U.S., had been neutralized back in the 80s.

I don't support this intervention either because I believe that we are overextended as we are, and the last thing we need is yet another client-state that requires a huge amount of military deployment to keep under control.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're not talking about either an occupation (4.00 / 1)

or a nation building project. Obama has made it clear that we will NOT put boots on the ground.  And Qaddafi may have been neutralized as a threat in the 80s, but he wasn't permanently neutered. You think if he stays in power and is allowed to move against his own people with murderous impunity he won't go back to being the same guy we saw in the 70s and 80s?  To him it would look like weakness and he'd try to exploit it.  

I doubt that we will interfere if the armed factions fight each other. We're trying to offer assistance, but Libya's going to have to settle its own problems in the end.  There was already a faction which disliked the U.S. government in charge in Libya all these years; in fact, it was a terrorism sponsor. Somehow we managed to get by without invading or occupying Libya, so what's the big deal if people who don't like us try to take over? We've been there, done that.  If it becomes a threat to us we'll deal.  That's the way it should be.  But what we will not do is become an occupier or guarantor of the peace any more than we have for Egypt or Tunisia.

---

by: Catzmaw @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:52:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's focus on cause and effects here (0.00 / 0)

If Gaddafi leaves and we have a civil war on Libya, then the argument is that we must occupy to keep the peace and prevent the war atrocities that come along with a civil war. Why? Because if we don't, then it will become a breading ground of terrorism.

The same arguments about how Afghanistan and Iraq would have to sort their own problems were made, yet the U.S. ended up having to stay in long-term occupations. It has become too dangerous for us to leave those areas.

Why wouldn't this be the case in Lybia?

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:09:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's completely and utterly different (4.00 / 2)

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, we entered Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Taliban led government, but because we were led by fools and scoundrels with a really bad case of attention deficit disorder we made very little effort FOR YEARS to bring any semblance of government to one of the poorest, most illiterate, Stone Age level countries on earth. This was a country which had been in chaos for almost 30 years and we didn't even try to make it better for several years.  It was our neglect and failure to plan which led to the mess which is the current Afghan situation.  As for Iraq, don't you remember? We decapitated the government.  We deliberately excluded everyone who'd been a member of the Baathist party or working for Saddam and we dismantled their military and their police forces with nothing viable to put in their place.  In both cases we already had boots on the ground, and once they were there we were stuck with a situation WE devised with our rank stupidity and failure to plan.  Don't you remember the scandalous way people working on reconstruction were being chosen? They were being interviewed for their loyalty to Bush and the Republicans, not for their core competencies.  We had fresh-faced kids out of the Wharton School showing up in Baghdad and announcing the computerization of their Wall Street at a time when they didn't even have access to regular electricity.

Here, we have Obama refusing even to say that we're going to take out Qaddafi. Why? Because that's going to be the job of the people of Libya. We are currently working with a committee of opposition leaders in Libya to provide help and advice, but we have NO intention of going in and taking out Qaddafi, nor of being saddled with the job of administering it afterward.  

In the case of Libya we WILL NOT SEND IN BOOTS ON THE GROUND, meaning your entire argument falls.  It's contingent upon us sending in ground forces and Obama has been clear that we will not. Is civil war possible? Yes, just as it's possible in Egypt and Tunisia and all the other Arab states which are in flux right now.  Do we have any plan to intervene? No.  Did we intervene during the Iranian protests which took place last year? No. Has Obama shown any receptivity to the prospect of invading Iran at ANY time in his Presidency? Absolutely not. So WHY do you keep repeating this argument over and over?

If we were to accept the premise you were advancing it would be that under no circumstances EVER should the U.S. EVER intervene in another country no matter how many are dying or how unstable the actions of that country are making the region and how much the actions of that country threaten the well-being of our allies.  Why not just announce we're isolationists all over again and put our heads in the sand?  

---

by: Catzmaw @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:35:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I truly hope that you are right (0.00 / 0)

since it will be better for the U.S. that way.

As for why do I keep bringing these things up? Because they are relevant and very possible. Gaddafi falls, and chaos gets unleashed in Libya with militant religious fanatics gaining the upper hand. Then the GOP will say that Obama is allowing a terrorist haven to emerge. Next thing you know, we will occupy Libya to take that argument out of the race in 2012.

And since one of the major factions of the rebels appear to be religious fundamentalists, the argument is not too ridiculous.

Why didn't I raised alarm on Iran, Egypt, or Tunisia? Because we weren't engaged in a military operation there, and I agreed with the Obama administration handling of the situations. I wish he kept doing the same with Libya, but he decided on another action for whatever reason.

The U.S. can play a strong humanitarian role in the world, if it wished to do so. It can lead economic blockades such as it is doing right now on Libya. The U.S. military is the most effective when used as a threat rather than when it is exercised. And limited, well defined military missions can be used here and there, as they were used in the Gulf War.

What does it mean if you agree on my basic premise? That, regardless of good intentions, we don't go around trying to solve the world with military methods. Those don't tend to have happy endings.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:55:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course the counter example (0.00 / 0)

...is Kosovo and the Balkans.  I won't kid you -- there are a lot of things that come out of the Balkans that are frustrating and anti-democracy (human trafficking of women immediately springs to mind) but given what that would have looked like if we had not gone in?  

I completely understand that we do not know who the rebels are or what kind of Libya they want.  We could easily get burned here.  But we were getting burned by Qaddafi for 40 years, and enough is enough.  At least this way, there is a CHANCE of something positive to come out of Libya.  It probably won't, but at least now it might.  For what we've been asked to do, I think that is a better gamble than not.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:51:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awesome diary (0.00 / 0)

Hope you decide to post it over at DKos, home of more disappointed dreamer lefties than you can shake a stick at.  After spending some time on Facebook gauging the reaction to the speech I found exactly what you talked about, a knee jerk reaction on both sides of the aisle, the righties accusing him of shallowness and naivete and arrogance and the lefties accusing him of being Bush lite and of naivete and arrogance. At least he got a pretty good response from Rachel Maddow and Laurence O'Donnell. I liked Maddow's description of his approach as "humanitarian pragmatism" and she did a nice job of showing why this isn't like the Bush doctrine.

---

by: Catzmaw @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:32:33 PM UTC

Actually the "front pagers" at Daily Kos (0.00 / 0)

have been strongly supportive of the Libya operation. Also, the user diaries have generally been supportive, from what I have seen, with at least one poll over there showing overwhelming support by Daily Kos readers for this operation. I think at this point, the opposition to the Libya campaign is limited to the far left, pacifists, and Republicans who would oppose Obama if he cured cancer.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:35:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Silly.... (4.00 / 1)

Obama didn't cure anyone of cancer.  Those people had illegal doctor write ups claiming that they had cancer.  But if they REALLY had cancer, they would show us their REAL diagnoses.  Don't you find it suspicious that no doctors will come forward and remember Obama curing anyone of cancer?  No nurses?

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 15:09:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm on Kos. Just look for me. (0.00 / 0)

They don't like it when you point out to them, however, just how much like the Teabaggers they are, especially the "Left" Coasters.

I'm Democrat from the cradle, and my parents, Virginians like me from colonial days, were ones who didn't leave the party when the party "left" the South. I'd put my liberal credentials against the "Left" and Northeast Coasters any day. We all know what the radical chic are and were - hell, it was a Virginian who coined the term.

---

by: Marianna76 @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 19:41:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfair (4.00 / 1)

I cannot shake the view that this diary and these comments would be very different if the president were Republican.  

---

by: Jason @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:40:30 PM UTC

And I can't shake the feeling that you're (4.00 / 1)

using a simplistic one size fits all to American foreign policy. If a Republican as reasonable, careful, reluctant to use force, and multi-laterally inclined as Obama were in charge I'd give him a listen. The last guy we had was an idiot making up for his personal inadequacies and stupidly convinced that we could act unilaterally and endlessly.  Why do you think Obama made a point of distinguishing what he's doing from what we did in Iraq? He's got a far different approach and he's imposing strict limitations on it.  

---

by: Catzmaw @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:55:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We'll see (0.00 / 0)

We'll see just how long those limitations hold.  Hope I'm wrong.

---

by: Jason @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 14:59:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This will be much like Kosovo (0.00 / 0)

we'll provide the air power, the rebels on the ground will do the scut work.  

Any comparisons between this operation and the Iraqi invasion are false.  There are no similarities.  If you want to compare it to the first Afghanistan campaign, which went very well in getting the Taliban out, feel free.  If that's the case than the goal is to not screw up like we did in Afghanistan once Qaddafi is gone.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 18:24:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice try at changing the subject. (0.00 / 0)

Now, back to the issue at hand: the ongoing Libya operation, which President Obama, most Democratic leaders in Congress, many liberals (e.g., Juan Cole, Daily Kos readers), many conservatives (e.g., John McCain), our allies, etc. support.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 15:02:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It can still be a bad idea (0.00 / 0)

Regardless of whether most people are supporting it or not. After all, the invasion of Iraq was also widely popular, and Saddam was also a terrible human being and a despot.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:10:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The invasion of Iraq took place under false pretences (0.00 / 0)

and during a time when we believed we actually had people competent enough to use good sense before taking action. How were we to know how deep the stupid ran through the Bush Administration? How were we to know that we would take everything we'd ever learned about counterinsurgency and administration of a conquered country and just chuck it out the window? How were we to know how much of both Afghanistan and Iraq became about privatizing war and making sure Dubya's friends all profited magnificently from the chaos?

---

by: Catzmaw @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:39:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True, but in this case... (0.00 / 0)

...it's both a good idea AND has received a lot of bipartisan support. Also, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up a completely different war that was launched under a completely different president 8 years ago, as the bungled-by-Bush Iraq War has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation in Libya.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:55:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I keep bringing them up, because they should be warnings (0.00 / 0)

I am trying to apply that principle of, "know history to avoid repeating it." That is why I keep bringing it up. Furthermore, there are many similarities.

We are engaged in a military intervention into a Muslim country that poses no direct, current threat to the U.S. which is divided in ethnic groups, with the intention to remove its dictator from power, with no clear plans on how the U.S. and its allies will deal with the political repercussions once the dictator is gone.

And the missions are carried with the hope that by taking down the dictator, we will improve the lives of the people who live in that country and bring them democracy.

The description above applies to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Now, you make argument that it is different because Obama is not as abrasive as Bush was. True, he isn't. He conducted this operation the way George Herbert Walker Bush did in the Gulf War. That is an improvement.

And there is no outright lie about weapons of mass destruction.

But the poor post-dictator planning, the unfounded idealism, the poor understanding of the internal ethnic conflicts of the target country are all there.

I am not denying the differences, but please don't deny the similarities.

I will still vote for Obama, since I am pretty pragmatic. And it is from pragmatism that I have doubts on this military adventure: most of them haven't worked out well.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:31:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can only speak for myself... (0.00 / 0)

But I've kept journals of my life, and I have supported quite a few military interventions under Republican presidents.  The notable exception was Iraq in 2002, because I thought we were rushing into something and reacting instead of acting, and those sorts of wars are almost always disastrous.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 16:53:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]