“Look busy” is not a foreign policy.
I think Bush would have done something about the Libya situation.
The uprising is significantly affecting the supply and distribution of oil in the world and that’s not something to be tolerated.
Huh?
You are confusing NATO and the UN - China has no vote in NATO.
Yes, NATO could impose a no-fly zone. And as we’ve seen a NATO action usually means lots of US troops and far fewer other ones. US soldiers by and large would be the ones “having to do it.” So yes, American fighter pilots and some European ones can make an act of war on another MENA oil rich country by trying to bomb out Libya’s air defense system and then try to enforce a no-fly zone over a sovereign nation. Yes, we can open up another US-led prolonged military operation in the region.
Yes, in the UN China and Russia will likely block a resolution. But there is nothing stopping the Arab League from acting … maybe the Saudi’s can send some troops there to enforce a no-fly zone instead of to Barhain.
The US is allegedly egging the SC to consider intervention:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42124342
[Emphasis added]
In my opinion, the problem with Obama’s foreign policy, at least in appearances, is that he seems to be continually blowing hot and cold. It is very difficult to get a sense of any unifying purpose or theme - one day it isn’t in US interests for foreigners get involved in Libya, in spite of civilian suffering (that is, US national interests ought to come first - a perfectly defensible theme); the next, the US is urging the SC to “perhaps go beyond” a no-fly zone - clearly meaning some sort of military strikes, intended to protect civilians (that is, civilian protection ought to trump US national interests - also a defensible theme, but contrary to the first):
The overall picure is one of vacillation. Perhaps this is just being “crazy like a fox”, feeling for consensus before making a decisive move; I dunno.
Yes, sorry. The UN. I had NATO on the brain for some reason.
And, indeed, until today the US was. Today the US changed its mind, and is no longer blocking a resolution.
Well, I don’t know about the Arab League. Are they not members of the UN? I was pointing out that your criticism was that other countries should do it not the US, and I responded that the UK and France were perfectly willing to do so but for that pesky UN resolution being blocked by the US and China, and that the crticism therefore wasn’t fair.
The US withdrew its objections today, however, so that’s a start.
Define something.
We are all frustrated because people are fighting a dictator, presumably for more rights and a better life.
But the truth is there is nothing we can do. If Bush did not drag us into 2 wars and trash the economy. Obama might have had more cards to play. But our treasury has been depleted and our soldiers are busy.
We have no right to interfere with a sovereign country. If the UN gives us legal cover, then it might change.
The UN is not going to get involved. That’s already been made clear. NATO might, but I’m not sure it’s in the offing. The sovereignty argument has never meant anything to me when it’s applied to dictators, but the U.S. is not going to go it alone. That’s not practical or smart.
The Arab League (and France) have identified the sovereign rights of the Libyan people as vested in the rebels, not the regime, have they not?
Then they should go in and fix the problem.
In fact, I suggested an Egyptian air intervention last month.
What about in the Balkans where the US stopped an ethnic cleansing? Or was the left-wing because Clinton did it? And we need to keep America as strong as possible as long as possible, at least until China democratizes somewhat for the democratic-capitalist-neoliberal world order to mature.
Simple logic: US Air power>Libyan air power, Libyans stop bombing their countrymen.
Well Europe’s budget has been so focused on social welfare projects that they have by and large neglected military spending and added it to that they’re less willing to mount military missions anyway.
I’m more interested in saving people’s lives than making sure everyone gets their welfare dues.
I concede your point.
I agree but would you not still say that much of the world’s intelligentsia especially in Latin America are strongly anti-American?
I apologize for the mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war#Calls_for_international_intervention
Amd add to that the Arab League and the French are calling for them… who both are usually suspiscious of the US. Plus Russia often works against us.
Does Egypt have enough air power to do it? Unlike a US intervention which will be a cakewalk or a turkey shoot at worst, an Egyptian air intervention can be contested by the Libyan air force.
Care to revisit this statement?
Well actually the UN doesn’t do it. But with the approval of the UN, the approval and participation of the Arab League, this becomes what an Iraqi operation should have been.
Will it do much? I don’t know. But the risk of this becoming another Iraq front for the US is now much reduced by taking the week to make sure that anything done is done in a true multilateral manner
Now watch France and Italy, who have been talking this up the most, wait for the US to strike first.
France: Hey guys we got this rammed through the UN, get to it!
Italy: Umm, we’ll let you use our air bases!
I don’t think it’s a meaningful statement. There is no shortage of people who will criticize the U.S.'s behavior and view it in a jaundiced light. Are they all anti-American?
I’m happy to be surprised and wrong about that. I thought NATO might get involved but I was under the impression that there was too much opposition in the U.N. We’ll see how vigorously the no-fly zones are enforced and whether they make a difference.
My question is, does the OP want to revisit her statement?
Clinton wasn’t fighting two inherited wars at the time. I can’t believe you want your country to embark on yet another military adventure. Aren’t you bleeding money fast enough for your liking?
I think it will only make the US’s troubles worse. It certainly won’t keep you strong. Not spreading resources already thinly spread certainly won’t weaken you.
That’s the sort of logic that led to conclusions regarding Iraq, conclusions like it taking six months and costing 50 billion dollars.
But hey, it’s not my money, or my country. Have at it. Good luck.
No, but we need to protect the Libyan people.
If so, so be it to protect the Libyan people.
Which why its a no-fly zone not a full scale invasion.
It may be the right thing to do - in fact I think it is - but it is not true that anyone needs to do it. You’re putting the obligation in the wrong place.
The question is whether or not that matters. Gaddafi’s forces may be capable of wiping out the rebels on the ground with artillery at this point.
I believe national governments are obligated to all human beings, especially a superpower like the US.
The question is whether or not that matters. Gaddafi’s forces may be capable of wiping out the rebels on the ground with artillery at this point.
[/QUOTE]
Still, it is better than nothing. Indeed it may be argued if we had acted faster this wouldn’t have haappened.
Maybe not. Last report I heard had Ghadaffi’s forces about fifty miles out, and heavy artillery has to move pretty slowly, even on a highway. And as Iraq War I showed very clearly, heavy artillery that must be on a highway to move is vulnerable.
The hope is that a sensible procedure has been followed, that preparatory actions have already been taken, and the planes can get into the air quickly. Then the question becomes how willing are Ghadaffi’s troops to die for him? My guess is: not much.
From my lips to The Ears…