Some Questions about our involvement in Libya

#26
#26
IP, I'd say I definitely eye US intervention with much more skepticism in the past and the cause of that is the Iraq war. That's squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.

This looks worse from a policy perspective but not as serious in scope by a long shot.

I can also say that if it weren't for Iraq, I'd be more behind our intervention in Libya regardless of how it's been handled.

IOW - my response is coming from a change in world view resulting from GOP actions rather than robotic loyalty to some political party.
 
#27
#27
Fair enough.


I have a strong suspicion that this is going to play out such that we will step way back from this operation in the next two weeks, and if our allies and regional powers don't pick up the slack it will just fail.

Obama isn't going to get left holding the bag on this. And that will be a shame, if no one else will hold it either.
 
#28
#28
Nice talking points, but the Libyan intervention was a decision rendered by the United Nations Security Council and requested by the Arab Leauge in order to stop the malicious targeting (mostly by air) of civilians. Being, by far, the largest and most technically capable military component in the UN, it's only natural we take the point in this operation.

Neither of these can be in the same realm of conversation as Iraq and Afghanistan until we have significant numbers of boots on the ground performing CQB.

We're not overthrowing any government... we're just enforcing a no-fly zone and using Electronic Warfare to disable radar and communications. This isn't even as much involvement as we've had in Liberia/Sierra Leone about 8 years ago.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
DC Vol said:
Nice talking points, but the Libyan intervention was a decision rendered by the United Nations Security Council and requested by the Arab Leauge in order to stop the malicious targeting (mostly by air) of civilians. Being, by far, the largest and most technically capable military component in the UN, it's only natural we take the point in this operation.

Neither of these can be in the same realm of conversation as Iraq and Afghanistan until we have significant numbers of boots on the ground performing CQB.

We're not overthrowing any government... we're just enforcing a no-fly zone and using Electronic Warfare to disable radar and communications. This isn't even as much involvement as we've had in Liberia/Sierra Leone about 8 years ago.
Click to expand...

Actually, Obama and Clinton have stated they want Col Q ousted yet McMullen said that may or may not be part of the plan.

We are actively bombing assets to establish the no fly and other military targets (e.g. tanks advancing to Benghazi (sp?).

Clearly not on the scale of Iraq or Afghan but also clearly a military attack on a sovereign nation that did not attack us and poses virtually no threat to the U.S.
 
#30
#30
I oppose our involvement in Libya, regardless of the reasoning for it. We're weren't attacked and it's not our fight.
 
#32
#32
volinbham said:
Given we have launched military actions against a country engaged in a civil war, here are a few questions I'd like to see answers to.

1. Has there been a clear statement American interests here? What is the security threat to America or significant interests that require military attacks on another country?

2. What is the objective? What are we trying to achieve?

3. What was/is the role of Congress in making/continuing this decision?

4. What does "success" look like?
Click to expand...

Great questions.

1. No. This was an unexpected opportune moment to try to oust an inconsistent defender of the Washington consensus. I think it took the extremely radical David Cameron to actual kick the gears in motion.

2. Great, great question. Let's put it this way - Qaddafi enjoys significant support in Libya. The rebellion - whatever it is - my instincts tell me it does not have the infrastructure or competence to run the government. Ergo, it will require enormous subsidies from the West to maintain whatever new government is in place. Even with said subsidies, the country may well be ungovernable with the continued action of Qaddafi's residual political base.

3. Nothing, but that has been a feature of American war-making for at least two decades. At most Congress gives a belated rubber-stamp to military action.

4. Great question, and I have no idea. I suppose ideally a new government, soaked in the realities of neo-colonialism, and ready to defend the Washington Consensus in Libya. I find this an impossible pipe dream, and I am very interested in the commitment by the Western radicals for this enterprise (it certainly hasn't been enunciated to their constituent "democracies"). I already opined the "battle-hardened" neocons of VN, for instance, don't seem to have the stomach for more "Old School" imperialism, which might be what it takes to secure a pro-WC Libya post-Qaddafi.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
Actually, Obama and Clinton have stated they want Col Q ousted yet McMullen said that may or may not be part of the plan.

We are actively bombing assets to establish the no fly and other military targets (e.g. tanks advancing to Benghazi (sp?).

Clearly not on the scale of Iraq or Afghan but also clearly a military attack on a sovereign nation that did not attack us and poses virtually no threat to the U.S.
Click to expand...

Again.

This is a UN Security Council action as voted by 10 of 15 member nations with the other 5 abstaining. The litigation was spearheaded by Sarkozy after the Arab League called for the halting of civilian targeting once Qaddafi specifically threatened the wholesale slaughter of rebels/rioters/protesters.


This is, in no way, about the United States. This is about the role of the US in the UN. If you wish, a discussion about the use of US military personnel and assets to carry out UN missions can be discussed.

This is not a unilateral mission so the threat of the targeted nation in regards to the US has no purpose.
 
#36
#36
DC Vol said:
Again.

This is a UN Security Council action as voted by 10 of 15 member nations with the other 5 abstaining. The litigation was spearheaded by Sarkozy after the Arab League called for the halting of civilian targeting once Qaddafi specifically threatened the wholesale slaughter of rebels/rioters/protesters.


This is, in no way, about the United States. This is about the role of the US in the UN. If you wish, a discussion about the use of US military personnel and assets to carry out UN missions can be discussed.

This is not a unilateral mission so the threat of the targeted nation in regards to the US has no purpose.
Click to expand...

I believe there was a UN resolution for Iraq as well.

I believe we ended up spearheading this resolution at the urging of Britain and France.

I believe labeling this a UN mission with us simply as participants greatly unemphasizes our role.

In a few minutes, the UNSC is meeting and I believe Russia no likey what they see.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
volinbham said:
Actually, Obama and Clinton have stated they want Col Q ousted yet McMullen said that may or may not be part of the plan.

We are actively bombing assets to establish the no fly and other military targets (e.g. tanks advancing to Benghazi (sp?).

Clearly not on the scale of Iraq or Afghan but also clearly a military attack on a sovereign nation that did not attack us and poses virtually no threat to the U.S.
Click to expand...

The Un wants to look like they support the uprising of "democracy" and have finally found the country they can display this by attacking Libya. Fast, easy, headlineable, and with no fallout or world backlash.
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
I'm simply wanting to hear somebody say, "Obama was right about Iraq."

Since this isn't political.
Click to expand...


I'll say those who opposed going into Iraq were right, and I was hoping Obama would keep the U.S. out of the situation in Libya.
 
#41
#41
IPorange said:
I'm simply wanting to hear somebody say, "Obama was right about Iraq."

Since this isn't political.
Click to expand...

Well I'll say he was partially right. Why partially? Because he made his comments in hindsight. He was not in the Senate when the war authorization was sought and virtually all Senators climbed aboard. He made is comments well after the WMD issues were discovered.

What's worse is that if he was right why is he doing the same thing now? What does that say about him?
 
#42
#42
bham, as I review this thread it sure seems like this is more about another round of Obama bashing than anything else.

But assuming there is some actual interest in your question beyond a launching pad for knee-jerk attack on Obama, here is an interesting article describing the debate within the administration on Libya. A lot of good detail about why we are doing what we are doing.

Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya - Swampland - TIME.com


I think it very hard, and maybe even a little bit foolish, to paint Obama's decision here as rushed or not very well thought through. Please drop the partisan attacks on him for just a moment and consider what the article has to say about this.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
bham, as I review this thread it sure seems like this is more about another round of Obama bashing than anything else.

But assuming there is some actual interest in your question beyond a launching pad for knee-jerk attack on Obama, here is an interesting article describing the debate within the administration on Libya. A lot of good detail about why we are doing what we are doing.

Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya - Swampland - TIME.com


I think it very hard, and maybe even a little bit foolish, to paint Obama's decision here as rushed or not very well thought through. Please drop the partisan attacks on him for just a moment and consider what the article has to say about this.
Click to expand...

See linked article from Gergen.
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
Well I'll say he was partially right. Why partially? Because he made his comments in hindsight. He was not in the Senate when the war authorization was sought and virtually all Senators climbed aboard. He made is comments well after the WMD issues were discovered.

What's worse is that if he was right why is he doing the same thing now? What does that say about him?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm more troubled by what this whole thing says about all of us. There's no consistency here.
 
#46
#46
IPorange said:
Like I said, I'm more troubled by what this whole thing says about all of us. There's no consistency here.
Click to expand...

I think evolving positions are fine based upon review of what's happened. You see a few here that have changed views because of Iraq - not simply for partisan reasons.

Obama may have changed his view as well.

My ongoing concern is that we simply don't have any clear indication from this administration about how this fits into a larger FP.
 
#47
#47
volinbham said:
Given we have launched military actions against a country engaged in a civil war, here are a few questions I'd like to see answers to.

1. Has there been a clear statement American interests here? What is the security threat to America or significant interests that require military attacks on another country?

2. What is the objective? What are we trying to achieve?

3. What was/is the role of Congress in making/continuing this decision?

4. What does "success" look like?
Click to expand...

Here is one angle:

AP Check- Lies & Bias in the Associated Press and other Liberal Media: Obama Strengthens George Soros' Oil Interests In Brazil

But it is crucial for him (Soros) that Gaddafi must stay in power! Otherwise his Russian investments might lose out. That explains why Obama dittered on something as simple as a no-fly zone for 31 days!
Click to expand...

images






lawgator1 said:
Wait, I thought the company line was that Obama was to be criticized because he wasn't acting in Libya. Now he is being criticized FOR acting in Libya?

Obviously there has been a change to the game plan. Can someone please email me the new memo on this?
Click to expand...

Obama+Sheeple+55pct.jpg








IPorange said:
volinbham, I personally feel this is a humanitarian action to prevent the deaths of civilians. However, Libya and it's current leader have been longtime enemies of the US and it's allies, and have been linked to various terrorism organizations and plots. One can't criticize this engagement without also criticizing the Iraqi expedition in 2003.
Click to expand...

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."

Barack Hussein Obama quoted in an interview with The Boston Globe in December of 2007.






lawgator1 said:
I think we should always have a plan and a specific objective when involving ourselves in overseas conflicts. I agree with you.

Just find the criticism of Obama on this especially empty given 1) prior criticism that he was soft in military matters; 2) criticism that he wasn't acting in Libya and should be; and 3) past GOP presidents and their proclivity to get us involved in much more serious conflicts with no defined goals.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


capt.eabb491db253487fbc51e50e6aefd5d8-eabb491db253487fbc51e50e6aefd5d8-0.jpg
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
they authorized use of force - not sure if there was a war declaration.
Click to expand...

They gave the President authorization to use force. They did not declare war.

Chicken **** position in my opinion. Pass the buck to someone else so they can take the brunt of the criticism while technically keeping their hands clean. These wishy washy military force decisions by the Senate is what led to the government's complete debacle in Vietnam. There hasn't been a declaration of war since WWII. Not coincidentally, that is the last war we were absolutely determined to do whatever to win. Look at the track record of force authorizations compared to declarations of war. Results speak for themselves.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#49
#49
JayVols said:
They gave the President authorization to use force. They did not declare war.

Chicken **** position in my opinion. Pass the buck to someone else so they can take the brunt of the criticism while technically keeping their hands clean. These wishy washy military force decisions by the Senate is what led to the government's complete debacle in Vietnam. There hasn't been a declaration of war since WWII. Not coincidentally, that is the last war we were absolutely determined to do whatever to win. Look at the track record of force authorizations compared to declarations of war. Results speak for themselves.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, WWII was the last war we absolutely had to win.
 
#50
#50
VOLatile said:
Coincidentally, WWII was the last war we absolutely had to win.
Click to expand...

I can see that, I guess. I just feel that if a soldier is prepared to give their last full measure when the country asks, the nation should be equally committed to do the same. If not, best to stay at home. I'm not a fan of piecemeal military action. I play to win, :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top