# Obama's Libyan Adventure-Will It End Badly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628 "2011-03-22T17:40:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/441 "2011-08-27T16:50:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > When their own insurgency gets strong enough and well-enough organized to be a plausible successor, and when it becomes possible to assist with tactical operations there. Or are you confusing tactical support of ground forces with strategic destruction, as your “bombs dropping” comment suggests? That would be funny if it weren’t so obviously wrong. The Libyan insurgency was a weak, disorganized mess when we started dropping bombs. > [@](#): > > “For whatever reason?” :dubious: That was gone over in detail here, as well as in Europe and in the halls of power. You really have no idea? Oh, I have plenty of ideas. They all start with “oil”. > [@](#): > > Maybe \*you \*don’t, but that statement is still silly bullshit. “Nobody”? :rolleyes: Define something that can be done that would be productive in the long run and perhaps that can be discussed. And you don’t know that it _isn’t_ being discussed pretty seriously, either - it would be far more reasonable to suppose that it _is_, hmm? You don’t have to be this facile. Oh, there’s lots of “discussion”. But that doesn’t do anyone any good in Syria. The protesters will likely be crushed before the rest of the world does anything effective. Not that I’m advocating that we should be dropping bombs, just pointing out that we have two nearly identical situations with the only logical difference being oil, and perhaps proximity to Europe. So, no, we don’t have a “Responsibility to Protect”. We choose when to protect when it is in our own interests. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/442 "2011-08-27T17:32:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Marley** , I’ve been trying manfully to draw \*\*Frank \*\* and **Magiver** out on the reasoning they claim to be behind their own facile dismissals, in the spirit of Great Debating. Their refusal to provide them is not my responsibility. Kindly be more cautious about drawing equivalences here, please. Complaints about moderating go in ATMB, **ElvisL1ves** , and in the meantime my instructions still apply. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/443 "2011-08-27T17:58:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > … > > Oh, I have plenty of ideas. They all start with “oil”. Dunno, Syria has oil. My ideas are “timing” and “neighbourhood” - seems to me a damn sight harder to do Syria after you’ve already started Libya, and when Syria isn’t next to a bunch of Arab Spring countries that are friends, but in a damned complex neighbourhood with enemies and ‘not friends.’ I’d also guess that the Israel and Iraq issues played directly against the US liking a Syrian endeavour, given lack of cred due to both. > [@](#): > > just pointing out that we have two nearly identical situations with the only logical difference being oil, and perhaps proximity to Europe. … Since Western firms (not so much Americans, but America wasn’t charging ahead on this so… no smoking gun there) already had decent access, afraid I don’t see the logic at all. I mean if this was about “oil” the logic would have been “\* let the bastard crush the rebellion, tut tut about it and sign more contracts with the leverage achieved via the ‘blind eye’\*” I’m really not seeing any actual logic, only superficial “oil must be the explanation” thinking really. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/444 "2011-08-27T18:16:23Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Dunno, Syria has oil. My ideas are “timing” and “neighbourhood” - seems to me a damn sight harder to do Syria after you’ve already started Libya, and when Syria isn’t next to a bunch of Arab Spring countries that are friends, but in a damned complex neighbourhood with enemies and ‘not friends.’ I’d also guess that the Israel and Iraq issues played directly against the US liking a Syrian endeavour, given lack of cred due to both. > > Since Western firms (not so much Americans, but America wasn’t charging ahead on this so… no smoking gun there) already had decent access, afraid I don’t see the logic at all. I mean if this was about “oil” the logic would have been “\* let the bastard crush the rebellion, tut tut about it and sign more contracts with the leverage achieved via the ‘blind eye’\*” > > I’m really not seeing any actual logic, only superficial “oil must be the explanation” thinking really. Syria doesn’t even produce 1/4 the oil Libya does. France and Italy had large oil interests in Libya, cultivated under Kadaffy. What a coincidence that they, along with Britain, were the driving force behind this adventure. They moved heaven and earth to get this thing going in Libya. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/445 "2011-08-27T18:29:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Syria doesn’t even produce 1/4 the oil Libya does. France and Italy had large oil interests in Libya, cultivated under Kadaffy. What a coincidence that they, along with Britain, were the driving force behind this adventure. They moved heaven and earth to get this thing going in Libya. Yeah what a coincidence … that makes no sense. First, as a factual matter, the Italians didn’t move their fucking pinkies for this. It was France and UK, bloody Italians showed what being driven by oil calcs means - keeping their mouths shut until it became down-right unsustainable. So one strike against your oil hypothesis right there. Second, it still makes no sense for either France or UK to lead a charge to suppress Qadafi crushing the revolutionaries, which he was pretty clearly on his way to doing at the time bombing was authorized, since there was already oil access, and in fact turning a blind eye (the Italian response until shamed into going along) would likely bring rather surer rewards from the Big Q, with far less risk. I mean the American oil company track record with Iraq isn’t terribly encouraging if your reason to go bombing is getting oil. Makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/446 "2011-08-27T20:26:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, there’s lots of “discussion”. But that doesn’t do anyone any good in Syria. The protesters will likely be crushed before the rest of the world does anything effective. Not that I’m advocating that we should be dropping bombs, just pointing out that we have two nearly identical situations with the only logical difference being oil, and perhaps proximity to Europe. So, no, we don’t have a “Responsibility to Protect”. We choose when to protect when it is in our own interests. The UN tried earlier (late April) to get the ball rolling on Syria to enforce human rights by implementing sanctions and an embargo, but it was shot down by China and Russia. [See here](http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-syria): > [@](#): > > European and American officials drafted and circulated a Resolution before the Security Council on April 26 which endorsed the call by Ban Ki-moon in his 22 April statement to open an investigation and would have implemented sanctions and an embargo; **however the Resolution was not accepted as states such as Russia and China expressed the view that the current situation in Syria did not pose a threat to international peace and security**. China and Russia likely don’t endorse the Responsibility to Protect concept. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628.md?page=22)