True enough, they could have appointed an advisory committee to examine the possiblity of forming an exploratory study group, with an eye to a resolution affirming their approval.
Tell you what, John, I’ll take your word, you look me right in the monitor and swear that you really believe this, I’ll accept that you do. But for a guy who delights in bitch-slapping us moonbats with stern, hard-headed, non-partisan realism, you’re slipping a gear, here.
You had Lindsey Graham and John McCain on all the talk shows this Sunday saying they supported this action, even if they criticized him for waiting too long.
I don’t think there is a huge Republican backlash here.
Nope, and as is typical of us Democrats, we’re just eating our own, as usual. ::sigh::
No matter how you slice it, this was not a cynical political move by Obama (unless you just think he’s politically naive, like many of my fellow lefties seem to believe from their kvetching during his first half term).
US military intervention wins absolutely no points from the Democratic base, and will not win any lengthy respect from Republicans, Tea Partiers or anyone else on the right. -Especially when we inevitably “walk away with the job unfinished” or “abandon the freedom fighters” as our limited commitment demands we do.
This may not result in a loss of support from independents for Obama, but it hasn’t and won’t garner any net positives.
So he’s acting on moral and humanitarian grounds, without reference to political advantage? Is that even legal? Can he do that?
Because of a hope, based on recent experience in Egypt, that the Libyan rebels themselves would depose Khadafy without outside help. There’s been “trouble” all over the Middle East lately, and the Northern powers can’t “participate” in all of it. Nor should they - it’s critical for the development of democracy that a people take charge of it themselves, that the major events be of their own making. That’s the “end game”, democratization - it simply can’t be said out loud due to a high risk of backfire.
This intervention only became necessary because the rebels were going to lose and be slaughtered otherwise. If you’re wondering only about the military “end game” for the North here, that would be the death of Khadafy. That’s another thing that can’t be admitted in public either, because all the consequences of saying so would be negative, and any failure to complete that little job would make the coalition leadership look bad. But those missiles probably didn’t hit his palace by accident, right?
I disagree. To appeal to independents, a politician has to demonstrate that he isn’t living up to the negative stereotypes associated with his own party. Republicans have to demonstrate that they’re compassionate enough. Democrats have to demonstrate that they’re tough enough.
For Obama to do nothing in this situation, in the face of international and Republican calls for intervention, risked appearing “not tough enough”. That doesn’t mean that the intervention is wrong or politically motivated. (Personally I believe it is the first but not the second.) But I do believe there is more political benefit from bombing than not bombing.
We actually did go into Libya with F-111s dropping some very carefully targeted laser-guided bombs at the first sign of trouble, or at least as soon as possible after the Lockerbie investigation was mostly finished. It was operation Eldorado Canyon, and ordered by “Ronnie” if the illustrious Ms. Burke would care to become more informed:
This has been simmering for a long time and the chickens have come home to roost. I am utterly disappointed that the people posting here are more concerned with the vagaries of Presidential power and Constitutional authority than dealing with the real issue: Daffy, the Middle East, radical Islamic terrorism, slice it any way you want - it’s all the same pie.
Who was in office when genocide occurred or how much time elapsed between one thing or the other is really after all, just so much fluff when Obama is all you really care about, right?
A people rebelling against a dictatorship to try to establish democracy is “all the same” as radical Islamic terrorism? Wow.
OK then, there’s nothing more to say to you.
This is exactly why it’s so hard to come down on one side or the other on our current intervention. It’s not all the same pie. Saying it is all the same pie is the same dangerous bullshit that has us in the position where any more military intervention anywhere is probably too much. It’s not remotely “all the same.” “All the same” is what gets you stuck in Iraq for no good god-damned reason. It’s ignorant, bloodthirsty, unsupportable bullshit. It’s also the difference, I think and I certainly hope, between Obama-led intervention and Bush-led intervention. Specifically, the distinction here is between humanitarian assistance of a legitimate people’s movement against a dictator and a faux “humanitarian” invasion and occupation of a giant Middle Eastern land mine. To the extent that we even slightly lean toward the latter, or make it easier for the latter to be justified, or even create the perception of the latter, we’re making a terrible mistake.
And presidential power and Constitutional authority are worth talking about because they’re the only things even approaching a guarantee against that kind of line-blurring sophistry (and that’s being generous, frankly) from the warmongers that always manage to crop up out of the ether. If we aren’t paying attention to those kinds of checks, all of a sudden all kinds of military actions start getting justified on the grounds that “it’s all the same pie.”
Willful Ignorance. Connect the dots.
Quote:
That’s a solution? Once again, what happens if we’ve spent all this money to bring into power a worse tyrant than Gaddhaffi? What happens if there ensues enough chaos and anarchy to where Libya degenerates into Somalia? Oh, I know, we’ll have another dirty little war.
Quote:
No, I don’t have a crystal ball; that is why I think it is good to stay out unless we know one hell of a lot more about the rebels and what kind of government they want. As for NATO, we are part of NATO, and I suspect we will be there as long as France, Italy, and the UK will. After all, they are our allies and we must help them because they helped us.
Quote:
So in other words if a Taliban-style group takes power and begins authorizing the execution of Christians and atheists and stripping away women’s righs, that’s just peachy with you? Your response to this question, Shayna, is why I oppose this intervention. Nobody has given two thoughts to the kind of people we are supporting.
Quote:
How do you know the Bush tax cuts are going to expire? You seem to be the one with the crystal ball. Borrowing money from the tyrants of China, what a wonderful idea; how progressive, what committment to freedom.
If you read your cite very carefully, that wonderful Arab League is already beginning to waffle and I have a suspicion that it will still be the USA that does the bulk of the fighting.
So, your game plan is to just ignore how stupid your previous comment was? Good idea, dipshit.
Paying forward the +1 imaginary rep point. Excellent post.
But I’ll have a go at your questions:
The Libyans still loyal to Gaddhaffi have rifles and military training. If they stay within the regions loyal to Daffy Duck, they can still fight the rebels and maybe win unless we do what you don’t want and send in the ground troops.
Are there credible groups? What if Libyan social structures and leaderhip aren’t robust enough to sustain such a transition. If Gaddhaffi has governed like a lot of tyrants, they will lack robustness because Gaddhaffi has killed or thrown into prison the people capable of managing such a transition.
The fact is the defense budget is going to have to be cut severely if we want to resolve our fiscal problems. The fact is that we might have to replace part of the equipment lost in Libya because it’s needed for this country. Once again, where is the money for this intervention going to come from? Do Obama and his fellow Democrats have the cojones to get the Bush tax cuts repealed? Or are we going to have to cut funding for things like Pell Grants?
Ever hear of guerilla warfare, Xenophon? Going to ground among people loyal to him is perfectly in keeping with Chairman Mao’s military philosophy which has proven quite effective in a number of wars. Gaddhaffi does not have to shoot down every Alliance plane. All he has to do is keep a viable force until the American people become disgusted with the cost of another ill-conceived military intervention. And when we pull out, I suspect the rest of NATO will soon behind us.
After the War Powers act of 1973, the pres can commit troops if he feels the need. He has to inform congress within 48 hours. Them he can commit for 60 days if he decides to. Then 30 more days for withdrawal.
I saw a Repub talking about it today. He said they were so informed and it is legal.
They would feel better if he went to congress though.
And a leader in power who needs them to stay there.
The one in free Benghazi seemed to come together quickly and well.
The act of overthrowing a dictator and taking control themselves can have a marvelous uniting power. Of course it won’t be without serious problems along the way, but those kinds of problems are common in the world - and can be helped with.
If it gets to where we *need *another F-15 to defend ourselves, we’ll have far worse problems than the budget.
Do you think the “loyalty” of Khadafy’s supporters is due to himself, or to his position and his ability to reward them handsomely (by local standards) for it? If he’s deposed, how many people will stay “loyal” enough to him to go to ground instead of defecting to the rebels?
The Iraq no-fly-zone performed perfectly well for the *decade *it was in effect, and no doubt would have continued to do so. And that, I remind all of you, is all that’s been implemented so far in Libya. Some of you are drawing false equivalences to Bush’s manufactured war of aggression and conquest. Let “boots get on the ground” “in harm’s way” and we can discuss it then.
Where on earth do you get the idea we’re supposed to be on the rebels’ side politically? If loyalists can suppress an armed rebellion, that does not violate any human rights. If rebels can overthrow a dictatorial government, that doesn’t violate any human rights. If Qaddafi suppresses an armed rebellion through indiscriminate massacre of his people, the UN (and by extension the nations taking part in this intervention) is saying that does violate human rights.
Then in the hypothetical, the international community would need to help them with it or allow another Somalia to form. Why is your hypothetical any more pertinent than mine to the immediate question?
We have to replace inventory if we want to maintain specific capabilities for sustained activity. We don’t have to do so if we want to allow for reduced specific capabilities, or if we want to shift inventories for altered capabilities, etc. But the question - and cost - of the weapons inventories that have been and will be used in this exercise were assumed quite some time ago when the weapons were contracted. Or are you under the impression we’re using vendor inventory not purchased until consumption?
Historical meta! I love the SDMB.
Thanks. Maybe you should reflect on the determinants of “viability” for a military force currently engaged in suppression of a rebellion.
You may be right. I have trouble seeing enough possible gains among independents not already in the Obama camp to offset the loss among Democrats like the OP.
This may well be true. If it is, we’re fucked, because it is regime change.
So, Bush was a terrible President partly because he increased the deficit to pay for his wars. But when the Obamaessiah does the same thing, you shrug.
So what have we learned here?
[ul]
[li] What is our goal here? Specifically.[/li]
** It appears to change from day to day. Either a no-fly zone, a bigger no-fly zone, or democratization.**
[li] How are we going to achieve that goal? [/li]
**Apparently by trying to convince the Arab League that they meant what they said. **
[li] How much of our resources are we going to commit? **Whatever it takes to achieve whatever we are doing, as soon as we decide what it is. ** [/li]
[li] How will we know when we have reached the goal?[/li]
**Obama will tell us, maybe. Maybe he can borrow a “Mission Accomplished” banner from Bush. **
[li] How will we know if we aren't going to reach it?[/li]
We will. Right after - hey look, a bird!
[li] What is our exit strategy whether we reach the goal or not?[/li]
There, quite frankly, no fucking idea.
[/ul]
Regards,
Shodan