Libya and Obama; it's the last straw for me

[Claverhouse]

*WMD Redux
*

Asked if American officials feared whether Colonel Qaddafi could open a new terrorism front, Mr. Brennan said: “Qaddafi has the penchant to do things of a very concerning nature. We have to anticipate and be prepared for things he might try to do to flout the will of the international community.”

Among the threats the United States is focusing on is Libya’s stockpile of deadly mustard gas, he said.
New York Times, via Glenn Greenwald
It’s Deadly ! I tell you, Deadly !

[Rune]

I think it is pretty funny that your Nobel Peace President is bombing the shit out of Daffy. Peace through superior firepower FTW.

[Shodan]

@Giraffe

(bolding mine)

Apologies for the sidenote, but did you actually mean to imply that no one was asking those questions before the Iraq invasion? Are you serious? I and many others on this very message board repeatedly asked those exact questions over and over and over again. Yet the pro-war side somehow didn’t find them very relevant or interesting, because none of you ever answered them. It was…frustrating.

(Quick search on my posts from back then turns up a couple of examples. There were many, many more.)

Mind you, I fully agree with your point about military action not being taken lightly or without realistic, tangible goals. But let’s not rewrite the history books and pretend no one was asking the questions you all were ignoring back in 2003.

Then make it “answer the questions” instead, if that helps.

You and others asked in 2003. Point taken. It is now 2011 - who is asking now?

And what answers have been given?

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Boyo_Jim

The only reason we are now bombing Libya is that the Arab League and the UN asked us to.

But… it’s not going to work out well. The Republicans will begin to attack Obama as the lapdog of the UN, and by extension because he is a One World Government pawn.

It is already clear we are going beyond the mandate of a No Fly Zone. As some in the media have put it, we’ve created a No Drive Zone for the Libyan military. If they leave their barracks, they will be attacked. So we have picked sides in a civil war… again. We have already lost the support of the Arab League, and we won’t get it back.

Just to be clear, the mandate was not limited to a No Fly Zone. Nothing being done so far has gone beyond the mandate, which was quite broad.

[Bricker]

@Gary_Kumquat

"Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This “puts the United States in a much stronger position because they’ve got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war.”

So, there’s a good moral reason for taking action, and it’s a cause that is backed by local and international opinion. Nope, I really don’t see that as a bad start.

I agree with this analysis – not so much the reliance on “international support” but rather the observation that this action is predicated on trying to save civilian lives in Libya, a strongly moral motive for the intervention. And really: if it’s moral to act to save these people when there’s an “international consensus,” then why isn’t it moral to do so unilaterally?

The Obama administration is in the right here, and the President doesn’t deserve the yammering criticism he’s getting.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Starving_Artist

Is it really a civil war when a populace rises up against a dictator?

By every definition I know of, “civil war” constitutes armed conflict between different factions of a country’s population. I don’t think “populace vs. dictator and his military” meets that test.

Sounds more like a revolution to me.

The civil war will come later.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Bricker

I agree with this analysis – not so much the reliance on “international support” but rather the observation that this action is predicated on trying to save civilian lives in Libya, a strongly moral motive for the intervention. And really: if it’s moral to act to save these people when there’s an “international consensus,” then why isn’t it moral to do so unilaterally?

Mainly because if you’re the only one in a group thinking some great outrage has occurred, there’s a good chance you’re wrong.

[Giraffe]

@Shodan

Then make it “answer the questions” instead, if that helps.

You and others asked in 2003. Point taken. It is now 2011 - who is asking now?

And what answers have been given?

The answers aren’t great, because the situation isn’t great. I’m on the fence about this action myself. I don’t at all like the thought of just sitting by while Qaddafi wiped out the rebels, but I also don’t think we need to be playing government builder in yet another Middle Eastern country.

The biggest problem is that the timing of how everything went down sucked. Back when the rebels were at Qaddafi’s door, a bit of air support would have probably been all that was needed for them to overrun Tripoli and take over. We go back home and hope they set up a government that’s slightly less shitty for people. But our mandate for getting involved was far less obvious at that point, since people weren’t getting massacred. But once the government gained the upper hand, the window for action started rapidly closing – if we had waited another week to flesh out whether we should or shouldn’t, the question would have been answered for us.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Put me down with John Mace, BoyoJim, and Frank. This isn’t going to end well.

We have no idea whether the rebels will establish a real democracy or just install another boss who might be worse than Gaddhaffi. It looks to me like this might be a case of tribes versus tribes instead of everyone arises to overthrow the Evil Leader.

We’ve got the Republicans proposing cuts to Pell Grants (and I suspect that they’re going to get them), but we’re spending money on a third war. Those Tomahawks are going to have to be replaced in the future.

If Bricker and Starving Artist support a policy, that’s reason enough to seriously question it.

[Shodan]

@Giraffe

The answers aren’t great, because the situation isn’t great. I’m on the fence about this action myself. I don’t at all like the thought of just sitting by while Qaddafi wiped out the rebels, but I also don’t think we need to be playing government builder in yet another Middle Eastern country.

Then ISTM we need to answer the first question - what is our goal? Do we stop the rebels from being wiped out? Or are we talking about regime change?

If we establish a no-fly zone, and Ghaddafi wipes out the rebels anyway. Do we sit by and watch it happen? Do we up the ante? Ground troops? A coalition invasion?

I think your analysis of the timing is good, and points out a serious problem - the US is reacting, without a plan and without a goal. And the temptation is to say “we will do just a bit more” to deal with this situation. And then a bit more. And then a bit more.

Maybe this time they will greet us as liberators.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

And really: if it’s moral to act to save these people when there’s an “international consensus,” then why isn’t it moral to do so unilaterally?

Because Libya is still a sovereign state, and as a global society we’ve decided that it’s only okay to meddle with sovereign states when (1) they’re meddling with other sovereign states, or (2) the international community thinks meddling is required.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Because Libya is still a sovereign state, and as a global society we’ve decided that it’s only okay to meddle with sovereign states when (1) they’re meddling with other sovereign states, or (2) the international community thinks meddling is required.

See what I mean? Obama will now catch even more flak about submitting to UN black helicopter overflights. He decided it was not in our national interest to intervene, and then did so anyway at the behest of an international body.

I don’t necessarily think that this is necessarily a bad choice per se. But I think this was the wrong situation to make that choice.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Giraffe

I also don’t think we need to be playing government builder in yet another Middle Eastern country.

But if (a big if, I know) that government turned out to be even quasi-democratic and pro-western, wouldn’t that be a good outcome for all parties involved?

@The_Peyote_Coyote

We have no idea whether the rebels will establish a real democracy or just install another boss who might be worse than Gaddhaffi.

Worse than Ghaddafi? Anyone that’s not a complete cross-dressing nutjob and abject terrorist would be an improvement!

[Rune]

@The_Peyote_Coyote

If Bricker and Starving Artist support a policy, that’s reason enough to seriously question it.

Yeah for sure. Those two are some very dubious characters to have on your side. On the other hand when the Taliban and Hezbollah strongly condemns your actions, then that is an unusual good indication that you are doing something right.

[Giraffe]

@Shodan

Then ISTM we need to answer the first question - what is our goal? Do we stop the rebels from being wiped out? Or are we talking about regime change?

My guess is that our goal is effectively to give Qaddafi a swat on the nose. Take away some of his military resources, make it clear he doesn’t have carte blanche in terms of waging civil war, but not commit to removing him or supporting the rebels through a complete takeover.

My prediction is that a cease-fire will take place in the near future, the UN will maintain some sort of sanctions / no-fly zone for a while, and then eventually Qaddafi will reestablish control over the full country and probably have his secret police arrest/shoot a lot of the rebels.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I think your analysis of the timing is good, and points out a serious problem - the US is reacting, without a plan and without a goal. And the temptation is to say “we will do just a bit more” to deal with this situation. And then a bit more. And then a bit more.

[/QUOTE]

I agree that mission creep is a serious potential pitfall. But I don’t think anyone has the stomach for ground forces in Libya, so neither the UN nor the U.S. will be willing to go that far.

[Shodan]

@Giraffe

My guess is that our goal is effectively to give Qaddafi a swat on the nose. Take away some of his military resources, make it clear he doesn’t have carte blanche in terms of waging civil war, but not commit to removing him or supporting the rebels through a complete takeover.

My prediction is that a cease-fire will take place in the near future, the UN will maintain some sort of sanctions / no-fly zone for a while, and then eventually Qaddafi will reestablish control over the full country and probably have his secret police arrest/shoot a lot of the rebels.

If that’s the case, it’s a complete waste of time, money, and the risk to our military.

And therefore that much more important to have the discussion now, so people can point out that Obama is being a fucking idiot. What the hell good does a slap on the nose do?

Regards,
Shodan

[Shayna]

@Frank

There’s a reason you want to leave the past out of it. Your sophistry is astounding. Bush was wrong, and you complained about it. Obama is wrong, and you support it.

If you were arguing for the right of the U.S. to attack anywhere, anytime, anyreason, I’d at least have some respect for your consistency.

Bush was right to take us into Afghanistan and I supported it, because he did it for the right reasons. Bush was wrong to take us into Iraq, because he did it for the wrong reasons. Obama is right to participate in a coalition effort to enforce a NFZ that’s been authorized by the neighboring countries where there is massive bloodshed of civilians.

It is possible to view each action on its own merits and support or oppose it regardless of who’s president.

If you want to call that sophistry, I can’t help you.

@aldiboronti

Right reasons? It seems pretty clear that Obama’s instinct was to keep the US out of this mess and that against his better judgment he’s been pressured into it by Hillary Clinton and others. See this article in the NYT.

Yes, the right reasons. I’ve outlined many of them in my previous posts.

I find it odd that one of the primary arguments used to bolster President Bush was that he surrounded himself with smart people who could advise him appropriately. Yet no credit is given to President Obama for surrounding himself with smart people who are advising him appropriately. Can you explain why it’s okay in one case for a president to rely on trusted advisers and not okay in another? Do you really want a president who acts unilaterally without heeding the advice of those around him?

@Gary_Kumquat

You really view the two scenarios as being similar? Because it’s hardly sophistry to point out the long list of differences between the two, and thus argue that one is valid whilst the other was not.

For instance, I missed the bit where we said we were doing this as a preemptive strike against a country building WMD. I missed the uprising in Iraq prior to us taking action. I missed the part where the security council authorised Iraq. I missed the bit where the Arab League stated their support for action in Iraq.

See, when you’re comparing two very different scenarios, I don’t think you can accuse a person of sophistry if they say they support action in one, or not the other. By all means accuse them of being mistaken, but that’s a different question.

Thank you, Gary.

@The_Peyote_Coyote

If Bricker and Starving Artist support a policy, that’s reason enough to seriously question it.

You’ve been around Straight Dope for how long? And yet you managed to utterly miss the entire point of not only its existence, but the reason we’re all here participating in debates!

Either we’re here to suss out the “straight dope” and hope to sway others to the truth of our opinions, or we just want an echo chamber where our debate opponents are always wrong, even when they agree with us.

Bricker and Starving Artist are two of my least favorite posters here, but for reasons entirely different from their willingness to acknowledge when “our” side is right. For that reason, they tend to stand alone among the crowd of conservatives around here, because they at least occasionally listen to our arguments and come to agree with us. For that they have my admiration. That they earn your scorn for that is obscene.

@Boyo_Jim

See what I mean? Obama will now catch even more flak about submitting to UN black helicopter overflights. He decided it was not in our national interest to intervene, and then did so anyway at the behest of an international body.

I don’t necessarily think that this is necessarily a bad choice per se. But I think this was the wrong situation to make that choice.

He decided it was not in our national interest to once again play sole cowboy and storm into an Arab country, and then did so at the behest of that country’s NEIGHBORS, when they asked for our help because we have military capabilities they don’t.

For the life of me I don’t get why that’s so hard to understand.

[Ludovic]

@Shayna

Either we’re here to suss out the “straight dope” and hope to sway others to the truth of our opinions, or we just want an echo chamber where our debate opponents are always wrong, even when they agree with us.

But it is possible to be wrong and still agree with me, if you’re arguing disingenuously or overly broadly or concern trolling. And also possible to predict a poster’s arguments so – predictably – that it is not worthwhile to take the time to even read their posts.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Shodan

If that’s the case, it’s a complete waste of time, money, and the risk to our military.

And therefore that much more important to have the discussion now, so people can point out that Obama is being a fucking idiot. What the hell good does a slap on the nose do?

Regards,
Shodan

Eh, it’s practice until a better war comes along. Kinda like a live fire exercise.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Because Libya is still a sovereign state, and as a global society we’ve decided that it’s only okay to meddle with sovereign states when (1) they’re meddling with other sovereign states, or (2) the international community thinks meddling is required.

Really? The innocent civilians would be just as innocent, and just as dead, either way, but if the “international community” is not moved to act, then it’s wrong to act alone?

Perhaps that’s a useful guideline, but I can’t really accept it as the definition of “right.”