Obama's Libyan Adventure-Will It End Badly?

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

A minor but interesting point: who remembers the pundits who were totally sure that the Bush the Elder response to the Kuwait invasion made his re-election all but inevitable?

The ones who didn’t realize that it was “the economy, stupid.” Same thing for Obama. Except… that was assuming the other party had a viable candidate to run. So far, I haven’t seen any stepping up to the plate.

But, another interesting point is that Bush the elder was seen so unassailable at the polls, that the big dogs in the Democratic party let some obscure, hick governor throw his hat in the ring to face inevitable defeat. If only the Republicans had someone like that to run. Someone from Hope, AK who had been governor of that state. No, the universe couldn’t support that much symmetry. There has to be some sort of quantum mechanical uncertainty principle that doesn’t allow it.

Actually, I don’t think the Huckster is electable, even if decides to run. Too far to the right.

[xenophon41]

Pretty sure you meant Hope, AR there, John. But you’re right, probably not electable.

[Jack_Batty]

I thought he mispelled ‘Wasilla’ there for a second.

[John_Mace]

@xenophon41

Pretty sure you meant Hope, AR there, John. But you’re right, probably not electable.

Yes. AR. He is actually from Hope, IIRC.

[clairobscur]

@El_Kabong

All along, I’ve thought that limiting western intervention mostly to a no-fly zone seemed just the tiniest bit feckless. OTOH, it seems to be working, .

Well, it doesn’t. What does work is bombing tanks, artillery, command centers, etc… IOW the “other means necessary”.

Also, obviously, this isn’t done with the sole intent of protecting civilians, but with the clear objective of putting an end to Kadhafi’s regime. Otherwise, the allies wouldn’t be bombing everything that lies in the way of the rebels.
I’m perfectly OK with that, in case it would be unobvious.

[elucidator]

I’m not quite totally ok with it. I think so long as the armored units are in retreat, or at least not advancing on population centers, restraint is preferable. Ghadaffi has to win, he has to utterly destroy his opposition, and he has to do it soon. Time is not his friend, support is draining. His power depends on being the strong man, the feared man. If anyone can defy him and live, he is in deep kim chee. (Or whatever the Libyan equivalent. I don’t know, I can’t eat Middle Eastern food, it makes me feel awful.)

Stalemate won’t work for him, the oil is in the east, and the rebels control the east, and are already beginning to sell the oil. He has to win, win totally, win brutally, and do it right now. Otherwise, sooner or later, he faces retirement with extreme prejudice. And more likely sooner than later. The day his troops paychecks don’t cash, he’d better be far, far away.

[XT]

I find myself, oddly enough, in total and complete agreement with you on this, 'luci. I don’t seem to be running a fever or anything either…

-XT

[Rune]

Wherefrom do the Libyans get the food and other stuff to continue everyday existence. And Gadaffi’s army food and petrol and ammunition to continue the fight? Most cities don’t have food stockpiles to last them very long, and supposedly the refiners will be either on rebel hands or have been taken out of service by allied bombings. Ammunition stockpiles will not get your very long either, if you don’t have factories to replenish. And especially when allied bombing continue to blow up the ones you have.

[Magiver]

@elucidator

Stalemate won’t work for him, the oil is in the east, and the rebels control the east, and are already beginning to sell the oil. He has to win, win totally, win brutally, and do it right now. Otherwise, sooner or later, he faces retirement with extreme prejudice. And more likely sooner than later. The day his troops paychecks don’t cash, he’d better be far, far away.

If he was like Saddam he has rooms full of cash. What’s he worth and what does it cost to rent a thug?

Once his toys are gone he goes to ground and then we don’t have anything to bomb.

[Jack_Batty]

And what fun would *that *be?

[Magiver]

@Jack_Batty

And what fun would *that *be?

there are plenty of other countries in the same situation. Pick one.

[John_Mace]

I wasn’t able to watch Obama’s speech last night (which he gave at 4:30PM PDT, oddly enough). Did he tell us what things will look like if this military action works/worked?

[TriPolar]

I think he was trying to avoid interrupting prime time TV last night. I have a feeling only the politically oriented and news junkie types care about this anyway. Of course he didn’t predict what the future would look like, even his detractors don’t consider him to be stupid. I was heartened by a guest on the Daily Show last night, a Libyan in emigre who reports that the rebels are chanting USA and breaking out American flags. Of course Stewart pointed out they might also be carrying lighters.

[John_Mace]

I’m not asking him to predict the future. I’m just trying to understand what “success” is supposed to look like. I’m not asking for Switzerland in North Africa, but what is the minimum “goodness” to be achieved before we decide this was worth it and consider doing this type of thing again.

[TriPolar]

Well Obama has justified this mainly on the basis of preventing a massacre. If no massacre occurs, he wins. Or at least the massacre would have to occur after Congress refuses to fund the ‘humanitarian mission’ and we’ve left.

[John_Mace]

@TriPolar

Well Obama has justified this mainly on the basis of preventing a massacre. If no massacre occurs, he wins. Or at least the massacre would have to occur after Congress refuses to fund the ‘humanitarian mission’ and we’ve left.

I’m not looking at in terms of a political win or lose for Obama. I’m looking at it terms of whether the policy is effective.

If there is no massacre, but we end up with two Libyas: “Kadaffi’s Korner” and one that teeters on the edge of being a failed state, that’s success?

[xenophon41]

@John_Mace

I’m not asking him to predict the future. I’m just trying to understand what “success” is supposed to look like. I’m not asking for Switzerland in North Africa, but what is the minimum “goodness” to be achieved before we decide this was worth it and consider doing this type of thing again.

Here are some excerpts from the speech which may give you a feel for the overall thrust. I think he’s answered those particular questions. (But then again, I thought he’d done so before this, and I don’t think he covered any new ground in the speech.)

I’ve added some emphasis where I thought he dealt directly with some of the issues that have been raised in this and the Pit thread:

@President Obama

[To summarize]: …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…

…we’ve 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 the 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…

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’s 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 Qaddafi regime so that it’s available to rebuild Libya…

[ I ] know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 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.

…America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi 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 United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s 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.

[Broadening] our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake…

…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…

[xenophon41]

Here’s a link to the White House transcript.

[John_Mace]

Thanks for the quote. Is he saying we won’t have succeeded until Kadaffi is gone? He says Libya will be a dangerous place until he is outta there, but it’s unclear if he’s committed to that political goal or to that measure of success. It seem to me that he’s being intentionally vague about that.

[xenophon41]

“Intentionally vague”, IMO is both the politically safest and strategically wisest choice here. I honestly don’t see how he can commit to Qaddafi’s ouster as a specific goal for the US, when he’s emphasized that it must be achieved by Libyans themselves, and has promised not pursue regime change using American force.