[stevewig]

Obama's Libya Speech: The Doctrine Is Clear, but the Mission Isn't - TIME

Extract:

Obama was clear enough, to be sure, about why he chose to intervene in Libya. With his army outside Benghazi, Obama said, Moammar Gaddafi was prepared to commit "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." That would not just have been a moral abomination, the president argued, but a strategic calamity that might send droves of refugees into Egypt and Tunisia, straining their fragile transitions; it would also set an example to other tyrants that "that violence is the best strategy to cling to power." Moreover, Obama said that to allow Gaddafi to defy the United Nations would be "crippling [to] its future credibility." (See the coalition troops' battle in Libya.)

This was a fulsome explanation, though there's also plenty to critique: The United Nations only took substantive action in Libya at Washington's strong urging; Obama reversed the causality here. It's not self-evident how a wave of refugees would spoil the political transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. And the U.S. is currently propping up another Middle Eastern ruler who has violently repressed protests.

But so what? Those points were largely window dressing for Obama's grander idea about American power abroad. Conservatives have accused of doubting whether America has a special, "exceptional" role in the world. But tonight Obama put the lie to that charge. "For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom," Obama said. To allow a slaughter in Benghazi would have been to "brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and... would have been a betrayal of who we are." As Chris Cilizza notes, this happens to be a powerful appeal to America's pride and patriotism. At the same time, Obama also explained that this isn't a license for fighting evil anywhere and everywhere: "We must always measure our interests against the need for action," he said. In Libya, the U.S. had the "unique ability" to act — thanks not only to our military power but also the international support behind it. (See "Libya and Obama's Doctrine: Leading from the Back.")

Such talk will please liberal interventionists and conservative hawks alike. (Yes, John McCain approves.) But for many Americans, some basic questions may remain unanswered. Obama assured the public that the U.S. is taking on a supporting role in NATO operations (though the AP is skeptical) and won't try to remove Gaddafi by force. "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq," Obama said, adding that "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."

Do you think he got it right (I do)?

---

Last edited by stevewig; 03-29-2011 at 08:50 AM.

[Parallax]

Funny how "This is a humanitarian mission to protect the lives of innocent civilians" very quickly turned into "Qadaffi has to go"
We will do here EXACTLY what we have done in every major conflict since WWII.
Phase 1. Go in guns-a-blazin.
Phase 2. After the major combat dies down, look around say "Crap, now what do we do ?
Phase 3. Pour billions of dollars into their economy. (We can afford to to that because our own is doing so well)
Phase 4. Eventually leave with everything pretty much the way we found it, politically.

[JohnInIndy]

And he is turning over power to NATO. Who's the biggest nation in NATO? So who is really going to be running the show? NATO with the Obamanator pulling the strings like a marionette. Why is Lybia different than Iraq? Or Tunisia, or any other country with uprisings? What's so special about Lybia? What's so different about Khadafi and Hussein other than Obama is president now and W was president then?

[les3547]

Funny how "This is a humanitarian mission to protect the lives of innocent civilians" very quickly turned into "Qadaffi has to go"
We will do here EXACTLY what we have done in every major conflict since WWII.
Phase 1. Go in guns-a-blazin.
Phase 2. After the major combat dies down, look around say "Crap, now what do we do :confused2:?
Phase 3. Pour billions of dollars into their economy. (We can afford to to that because our own is doing so well)
Phase 4. Eventually leave with everything pretty much the way we found it, politically.

You don't know that. Cynicism isn't yet called for.

First off, we didn't go in "guns-a-blazin." We showed restraint.

Second, we aren't doing "combat." We are giving rebels a chance to succeed. If they feel they themselves did it, our judicious help will be seen in a positive light, and it also leave rebels with the message they must continue their own efforts to make democracy happen.

Third, we waited because we wanted the rest of the world to step up; brilliant diplomacy and policy if you ask me. We need to stop being cowboys that clean up the lawless towns, and insist the world as a whole make planet Earth a place for all human beings to live and pursue happiness.

And fourth, if we continue with such careful support -- support that expects Libyan citizens to do most of the work, plus requires world participation -- then there is no reason to assume things will turn out as they have in the past (i.e., since we aren't managing things as we have in the past).

[shooz]

What's an Obamanator?
Never heard of it.
You're just makin' stuff up again.
You really need to pay more attention, if you don't know the difference.

[les3547]

And he is turning over power to NATO. Who's the biggest nation in NATO? So who is really going to be running the show? NATO with the Obamanator pulling the strings like a marionette. Why is Lybia different than Iraq? Or Tunisia, or any other country with uprisings? What's so special about Lybia? What's so different about Khadafi and Hussein other than Obama is president now and W was president then?

Right, and if he'd done nothing you'd be calling him a spineless wimp. Admit it, no matter what Obama does you, Newt, Rove, et al will find fault with it.

[GeneV]

You don't know that. Cynicism isn't yet called for.

First off, we didn't go in "guns-a-blazin." We showed restraint.

Second, we aren't doing "combat." We are giving rebels a chance to succeed. If they feel they themselves did it, our judicious help will be seen in a positive light, and it also leave rebels with the message they must continue their own efforts to make democracy happen.

Third, we waited because we wanted the rest of the world to step up; brilliant diplomacy and policy if you ask me. We need to stop being cowboys that clean up the lawless towns, and insist the world as a whole make planet Earth a place for all human beings to live and pursue happiness.

And fourth, if we continue with such careful support -- support that expects Libyan citizens to do most of the work, plus requires world participation -- then there is no reason to assume things will turn out as they have in the past (i.e., since we aren't managing things as we have in the past).

Exactly.

The situations where our kind of mechanical firepower can make the difference in that part of the world are few and far between. This is one of them.

[Wheatfield]

What's so different about Khadafi and Hussein other than Obama is president now and W was president then?

The biggest difference, really, is that Hussein was America's dog who slipped his leash and was openly thumbing his nose at America, Ghadaffi is just engaged in random slaughter of his own people.

[les3547]

The biggest difference, really, is that Hussein was America's dog who slipped his leash and was openly thumbing his nose at America, Ghadaffi is just engaged in random slaughter of his own people.

Even more significant to me (since there is slaughter, starvation, disasters, etc. going on all over the world) is Obama and Clinton getting the rest of the world to step up. I doubt GW could have done it because the world so disapproved of what the US did in Iraq (where claims of WMDs turned out to be total BS after all). We desperately need a united and cooperating world, nothing right now would be a more powerful step toward making Earth a decent place to live than that. Obama and Clinton (it would be easy to overlook her immense contributions since she works in the background so much) are reestablishing world trust in the US.

[shooz]

I hope no one was really expecting John to defend his statement.

It's not going to happen.

[Parallax]

You don't know that. Cynicism isn't yet called for.

First off, we didn't go in "guns-a-blazin." We showed restraint.

Second, we aren't doing "combat." We are giving rebels a chance to succeed. If they feel they themselves did it, our judicious help will be seen in a positive light, and it also leave rebels with the message they must continue their own efforts to make democracy happen.

Third, we waited because we wanted the rest of the world to step up; brilliant diplomacy and policy if you ask me. We need to stop being cowboys that clean up the lawless towns, and insist the world as a whole make planet Earth a place for all human beings to live and pursue happiness.

And fourth, if we continue with such careful support -- support that expects Libyan citizens to do most of the work, plus requires world participation -- then there is no reason to assume things will turn out as they have in the past (i.e., since we aren't managing things as we have in the past).

Substitute "Bush" in that everywhere "we" occurs, and tell me (with a straight face) that you would still have written it.

[GeneV]

Substitute "Bush" in that everywhere "we" occurs, and tell me (with a straight face) that you would still have written it.

If Bush had acted as he describes, yes.

[JohnInIndy]

The biggest difference, really, is that Hussein was America's dog who slipped his leash and was openly thumbing his nose at America, Ghadaffi is just engaged in random slaughter of his own people.

What about the Pan Am flight he took down?

Killed in the incident were:
12 Indians

• Neerja Bhanot, 22
• Trupti Dalal, 28
• Rupal Desai, 26
• Krishna Kumari Gadde, 28
• Seetharamiah Krishnaswamy, 61
• Kodiyattu K. Kurian, 25
• Boby Thomachen Mulloor, 7
• Thomachen Thomas Mulloor, 30
• Aleyamma Scaria Nagatholy, 39
• Ramakant Naik, 55
• Kuverben Patel, 81
• Ganapathi Thanikaimoni, 48
• Adel zalat , 34

3 Pakistanis

• Syed Nesar Ahmad, 43
• Meherjee Minocher Kharas, 28
• Imran Rizvi, 17

3 Americans

• Rajesh Kumar, 29
• Surendra Manubhai Patel, 50
• Kala Singh, 36

2 Mexicans

• José Álvarez Lamar Nuñez, 57
• Ricardo Muñoz Rosales, 28

Most of the passengers and crew were from India, while the rest were mainly from Germany, Italy and 10 other countries including 18 Americans.
The American Memorial Site has a web page dedicated to the victims of Pan Am Flight 73.

Second, we aren't doing "combat." We are giving rebels a chance to succeed. If they feel they themselves did it, our judicious help will be seen in a positive light, and it also leave rebels with the message they must continue their own efforts to make democracy happen.

It's not combat? And what will take the place of Ghadafi? The muslim brotherhood or al-Qaeda? And how are they better than what's there now?

[les3547]

Substitute "Bush" in that everywhere "we" occurs, and tell me (with a straight face) that you would still have written it.

Sure I would have. Now, if you'd asked me about supporting his economic policies, that I opposed from day one since I dislike most Republican economics.

But other than that, I always try to support my President, no matter what party. I gave GW every bit of confidence I could UNTIL he decided to invade Iraq. Like much of the rest of the world, I was suspicious of the evidence, plus we had a war going on in Afghanistan that seem much more important to do right. Still, I hoped for the best. Now, looking back with 20/20 vision, I know Bush had it wrong.

[JohnInIndy]

Sure I would have. Now, if you'd asked me about supporting his economic policies, that I opposed from day one since I dislike most Republican economics.

But other than that, I always try to support my President, no matter what party. I gave GW every bit of confidence I could UNTIL he and Cheney decided to invade Iraq. Like much of the rest of the world, I was suspicious of the evidence, plus we had a war going on in Afghanistan that seem much more important to do right. Still, I hoped for the best. Now, looking back with 20/20 vision, I know Bush had it wrong.

You're kidding right? Even Bill Clinton thought Hussein had WMD

As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."
President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "
Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."
Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Russia and France knew for a fact he had them. They sold them to him.