That we’re not on Gaddafi’s side? That he is a dictator? That no one in the Coalition is a dictator (yet?)
We clearly aren’t done yet, but need to use our influence to make sure no one else becomes a dictator.
I’m contrasting the situation to Cold War days, when we backed dictators because they were our dictators, and to the position of some Republicans that we should have supported Mubarak, which would have put us on the wrong side of that battle.
Okay for the hour or so they are over Libyan air space. Actually, I’d bet we’d have a lot more people in Libya after the smoke clears, in order to help - but with luck no one will be shooting at them.
Sorry, yes, I meant that some people refused to give Obama credit then (for Osama) and won’t give him credit for assistance in this situation. Those people, in my experience, tended to be conservatives.
A lot of people did say that, but given the transitory bump in his approval ratings, I’m not sure how much difference that’ll make. And even less convinced that people will even unconsciously factor in his role in removing Qaddafi when they’re deciding how to vote next year.
More important, I think, is a longer-term change in evening out the two parties’ national-security cred. The Dems can now run on having handled bin Laden, Qaddafi, and the Balkans in a manner that was successful, involved no American loss of life and minimized deaths among those we were trying to help.
Meanwhile the last GOP administration got 3000 Americans killed at home and another 4000 overseas, let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora, turned a quick and easy win in Afghanistan into a quagmire, and got us involved in another quagmire in Iraq. which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the very people we were supposedly rescuing from Saddam.
All of a sudden, it’s been 20 years since the last foreign policy success by a Republican President.
There are two possible scenarios of what actually took place here:
Scenario 1 -
The US was absolutely brilliant in its planning. We provided air support, weapons and intelligence to the rebels in exchange for certain “appreciation” after they take power in the form of oil contracts, military bases, intelligence, etc. We did all this behind the scenes so that there is little resentment among the population toward “western aggression”.
Scenario 2 -
The US bumbled into things and when the regime didn’t fall right away, we more or less took a back seat and waited for things to play out while providing very limited fulfillment of our promises.
Problem is, both of these things look the same from the outside looking in. Maybe Obama brilliantly manipulated the situation, maybe he just got lucky after floundering about.
It will be very hard for him to take advantage of this politically. Under Scenario 1, he can’t very well take credit or it will undermine the whole point. Under Scenario 2, if he tried to make it look like he planned everything, he risks the rebels publicly calling schenanigans on him. I’m sure the truth will come out eventually, but probably not for years.
I don’t think the public really connects Obama much with Libya. Which is, of course, itself a good thing: We shouldn’t have been connected much with Libya, and accordingly, we weren’t. In an ideal world, it would be recognized that he had enough sense to take a hands-off approach. In our world, though, I don’t think the election would look much different than if there had never been a Libyan revolution.
No this is very inaccurate.
What is this USA USA USA?
It was France, USA, UK, Qatar, Netherlands, etc.
It is very boring this accusation always of oil conracts. Since the American firms did not get oil contracts in Iraq, what sense is there in this conspiracy accusation?
It is the rebels themselves who are saying the support was very useful and kept them alive against the great might of the Libyan army, these revolutionaries only months ago had never touched a gun.
In fact the revolutionaires themselves are saying now in public to international journalistes it was the arms given from France, Qatar, the intelligence of overflights of the Americans and the bombings of NATO as whole that saved them and gave them the power to go against the full strenthg of Qadafi. It is ridiculous to make conspiracy theories and claim that the aides can not be admitted when the revolutionaries are thanking the NATO allies openly.
I think Obama will play it low-key during the campaign. He won’t put up a banner with bin Laden’s and Gaddafi’s pictures with a red X drawn through them. But he’ll make speeches about how “In the last four years, things have improved in the Middle East as profoundly as they improved in Eastern Europe in the nineties. Terrorist organizations have been brought down and dictatorships have been replaced by democracies. The Middle East has become a safer place and America has supported these efforts. And thanks to this improved stability the need for an American military presence in the Middle East has been reduced.”
On the surface, it’s all a positive message about how things are good. But there’s the unspoken subtext about how there was a time not too long ago - under a Republican administration - when things were bad. So the political message gets out as well.
And what is the Republican nominee going to say in response? That things were better in 2008 then they are in 2012? That’s not going to ring true unless something really bad happens in the next year.
It appears rather odd to view the Libyan war on how it will reflect on Obama or your Apple stock prices or probable Eurovision winners. There are larger issues at stake. And especially considering the comparable minor role of the USA in the whole matter. Miniscule Denmark has carried out something like 20% of all airstrikes during the whole campaign. Norway something similar. That’s a combined population of New York incl. a few suburbs, and then there’s France, UK, etc. - so how much does that leave the USA.
I believe they supplied indispensable AWACS and aerial refueling assets. 
It’s certainly truth that the US was just another of the allies in the Libya campaign, and that other NATO nations provided most of the assets and initiative in making the whole thing happen. But there’s no reason why a US-based message board can’t discuss the political ramifications of the campaign in the US. There are a couple other active threads on the Libyan situation that are just about Libya.
You obviously need to take a reading for comprehension course. Your entire post is an incoherent mess that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
How about Scenario 3 - the Obama administration, in conjunction with several other governments, and in recognition of an opportunity to do the right thing* at relatively little cost, formulated a solid but by no means guaranteed plan, carried out that plan credibly though not perfectly, and were glad to see the Libyans, risking much more, leverage that assistance in the making of their victory.
- by various interpretations of the term
To answer the OP, yes, I think Libya will end up being a net positive, as opposed to a net negative, for Obama which, in and of itself won’t mean too much. However, when added to the capture of bin Laden it pretty much obliterates the ‘Democrats inept on foreign policy’ meme, doesn’t it?
Will it increase his chances of getting reelected? I doubt it. A year from now, the public will be like “Liby who? Osamabin what?”
I don’t know if there was any arrangement, but it does appear that the countries that helped the revolution will be first in line for oil contracts. NYT reports:
It would be odd to discuss how the Libyan revolution will affect Apple stock prices of Eurovision winners in a thread about how the Libyan revolution will effect Obama’s re-election.
But I think discussing how the Libyan revolution will affect Obama’s re-election in a thread about how the Libyan revolution will affect Obama’s re-election is on-topic.
At the beginning, while waiting for NATO to ramp up, it was entirely a U.S. operation. Certainly, that didn’t last too long. (Less than a week, if I recall correctly.)
Obama won’t have scored major offensive points for Libya or the OBL raid, but rather shored up his defenses. He has essentially shut down all accusations of being ineffectual on terrorism or the mideast. As a bonus, his Libya-opposing critics now look like a-holes. This time next year, if the economy is humming along, these accomplishments will be the cherry on top of a cakewalk. If not, they will give him a fighting chance where otherwise he would have none.
I love this. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Right now the unemployment rate is 9.1 percent. When Ronald Reagan had been in office an equal number of months it was 9.5 percent. The highest it got under Reagan was 10.8 percent. The highest it got under Barack Obama was 10.1 percent.
Also, when Reagan and Obama had been in office the same amount of time, Obama’s approval rating was generally higher than Reagan’s.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
I have been disappointed by Obama. I wish he was more skilled at out thinking and out maneuvering the Republicans. Nevertheless, I have not given up on him yet.
If Libya gets its oil industry back online sooner than later, and the price of oil goes down (it has already dropped since the rebels’ iminent victory became clear), that will stimulate the American economy at least somewhat, or so says this AP article.