Obama's Libyan Gamble, Week Two
[Note: Last Monday, I wrote an article titled "Obama's Libyan Gamble." This should be read as "Part Two" of that article.]
Events on the ground in Libya, roughly one week after coalition warplanes and cruise missiles began flying, seem to have taken a turn for the better for the rebel forces. Surprisingly, though, the American media and political establishment seems largely focused on any number of ways this war could turn out badly for America, for Libya, and for the world. As city after city falls to the rebel forces, perhaps this narrative will shift somewhat. President Obama is about to give a speech to the nation, which may help focus the media on what is actually going on in Libya, rather than speculating about what could happen. Or perhaps not -- Obama's speech may become "the story" itself, and be picked apart word by word for the next few days, no matter what the rebels are doing in Libya.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the media is in "once bitten, twice shy" mode about cheerleading a new American war. Those in the media with an ounce of self-realization may feel chagrined at their jingoism at the start of our last two overt wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither one turned out as it was supposed to (to put it mildly), and the American public is war-weary after almost ten years of non-stop wars. Perhaps, to be fair, the media is merely reflecting this attitude.
I actually wasn't a big fan of imposing a no-fly zone in Libya myself. But, since we're now in a new war, I prefer to objectively look at what is happening rather than imposing my projections of what could go wrong. First, let's take a look at the military situation, as it now stands.
When the war (or the coalition's involvement in it) began, the rebels held only Benghazi, in the eastern part of Libya. The first few days of the war involved creating a safe no-fly zone, which meant sending over 100 cruise missiles and uncounted bombing runs in to take out both Ghaddafi's air force and his anti-aircraft capabilities. This was quickly achieved. The French shot down one airplane, but for the most part this involved strikes on targets sitting on the ground.
But the real situation-changer was what came next -- the coalition bombing the loyalist forces' tanks and heavy vehicles. Call it imposing a "no-tank zone" or a "no-drive zone." This prevented the loyalist forces from entering Benghazi, and has allowed the rebels to retake all of the coastal towns they had lost before the coalition acted. From Benghazi, the rebels have pushed ever-westward, taking Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf. The initial breakthrough happened in Ajdabiya, but afterwards the rebels have been advancing at an astonishing pace, as the loyalist forces have cut and run from all the other towns, after watching their tanks bombed flat. The loyalist forces (some of them, at least) are reportedly leaving behind their uniforms and ammunition, suggesting this is not merely an orderly retreat but rather mass desertion by Ghaddafi's troops. A rout, in other words. How much of this is wishful thinking and how much is the reality on the ground remains to be seen, however.
The rebels, at this writing, have made it as far as Bin Jawwad, which is the last step before taking on the city of Sirte. Sirte is likely not going to fall as easily as Brega and Ras Lanuf, however. In the first place, it is Ghaddafi's home town, and a strong base of support for him. In the second place, the loyalists are apparently digging in and preparing for a major battle in Sirte.
Sirte is strategically important because it lies between the rebel forces to the east and Misrata in the west. Misrata is currently a battleground, with portions of the city held by rebels, and portions still held by the loyalists (who still have un-bombed tanks to use there). Misrata, very early on in the uprising, was held by rebel forces, but the loyalists took the city in their march to the east (which was halted by the coalition's involvement). Misrata is also the last big city, looking westward, before Tripoli itself.
The rebels might be advised to just bypass Sirte and move on to Misrata. Lay siege to Sirte, guard the approaches to the town, and bottle up a bunch of loyalist forces there. If the rebels could circle around the city and move on to Misrata, this would leave the loyalists in Sirte cut off from their resupply lines. If the loyalists moved out from the city, air power could easily turn them back, it seems. Of course, I don't have accurate enough maps to know if this is even possible (if roads exist which bypass Sirte easily, in other words), but if so it seems to be an option worth considering. The real goal is Tripoli, and taking Misrata would be an enormous victory for the rebels.
One of the open questions Obama may address shortly is whether the coalition should arm the rebels. Diplomatically, we're not supposed to be "taking sides" in the civil war, but this is a fiction only diplomats now believe. We have -- quite obviously -- taken sides already. Whether the U.N. resolutions allow arming the rebels or not is an open question, though. Meaning that another diplomatic fiction may come to pass -- arming the rebels without openly admitting we are doing so (which America has certainly done in previous conflicts).
Outside of the military situation, the coalition seems to have the upper hand on the world stage, at least for the moment. A woman claiming Ghaddafi's soldiers raped her has become a focal point in the media, putting a human face on the regime's brutalities. Obama is likely going to devote a goodly portion of his speech to the fact that N.A.T.O. is taking over the operation, which was his war plan all along. This is happening much faster than any other conflict, and shows a real "coming of age" of the fighting capability of N.A.T.O., which has evolved since the fall of the Soviet Union. N.A.T.O.'s participation in Afghanistan was the real beginning of this, and its command of the Libyan war effort is going to be seen as a real turning point later on (assuming things go well with the setup).
There was one incident which was pretty amazing during the war so far, when two Americans had to bail out of their plane (which, according to official reports, malfunctioned and was not shot down). These airmen had been bombing an Islamic country, and yet they were welcomed and succored by the people on the ground. The mission to rescue the airmen did cause civilian casualties, reportedly killing five or six of them. What was astonishing, however, was an interview of a wounded civilian in a hospital afterwards who praised the American pilots he was trying to help, and bore no ill will towards the rescue mission which had seriously injured him. Think about that for a minute -- this man was shot by American forces while he was trying to aid an American pilot who had been part of an effort to bomb his country, and he was still thanking America for what it was doing. Not exactly the sort of image America is used to watching in this sort of situation, is it?
Qatar announced today it would be helping the rebels out not only by flying missions to patrol the no-fly zone, but also by getting Libya's oil production moving again. Several of the rebel-held coastal towns are ports for oil shipment, and the money generated by the rebels being able to sell oil may allow their nascent government breathing room to get up and running. It will also provide funds for the rebel forces to operate, as well.
President Obama's speech will be important for him domestically, to rally the public behind his war plan and to quell criticisms (or at least change the flavor of them) from war opponents on both sides of America's political divide. By waiting a week to give this speech, Obama can talk about the momentum the rebels have now created, and the rebel victories they have so far achieved -- rather than just speaking optimistically about what he hopes will happen, as he would have had to a week ago. This was a gamble by Obama (within his larger gamble of going to war in the first place), but it could turn out positively for him. If the war goes well, then few people are later going to remember the timing of his speech, or any of the congressional bickering during the earliest days of the war.
Of course, there's no guarantee that the war will go well, or end well. Far from it. There's still a very large possibility that it could become a fiasco, a quagmire, or whatever other term you wish to describe an ill-conceived military adventure. The public, so far, is largely rallying behind the president and this war, but that could melt away very quickly in a populace that is indeed very war-weary in general.
Which brings us back to Obama's gamble. Obama, had he not gone in to Libya, would now be the target of complaints (by the same people who are now criticizing what he did do, most likely) by the Jingoists as having "lost Libya," and by the Bleeding Hearts as having "been responsible for a massacre, by not acting." He chose the route that he did, however, and he's about to explain it to the public. So far, his gamble seems to be paying off fairly well. Militarily, it has been a rousing success, achieving the objectives set without loss of a single coalition life. Politically, Obama will be announcing the handover of a war to the coalition partners. Whether this gamble pays off is still an open question, but at least Obama can claim he is doing so on the schedule he laid out at the beginning -- "days, not weeks."
If the Libyan war ends well -- with Ghaddafi gone and a regime change to a government with much closer ties to the United States than Ghaddafi's (since we helped place them in power) -- then Obama's Libyan gamble will have paid off handsomely. If it deteriorates into a stalemate or loss for the rebels, Obama's gamble is not going to be seen as an intelligent move. A little more than one week in, however, things seem to be going fairly well. If the military situation continues to improve (especially if the rebels take Sirte and/or Misrata), then the cries of "Doom!" from Obama's political opponents will likely fade.
Any military action carries with it a lot of risk. There is the risk to those doing the fighting itself, and there is the risk back at home politically for those ordering the troops to fight. Obama's Libyan gamble has a large amount of risk for him, for America, and for Libya itself. So far, the benefits have outweighed the risks, as the rebels continue to advance with coalition air cover. But Obama's critics are right in one very important sense -- the real gamble is whether Ghaddafi can be dislodged from power. That is still a completely open question. Tripoli is not going to be as easy to overrun as Ajdabiya was. Ghaddafi is still capable of doing all sorts of nasty things before this is over. These risks still exist. And this is going to be the hardest subject Obama tackles in his speech -- how "Ghaddafi must go" is the real objective here, but is not part of the coalition's stated mission. Diplomatic nuance is fine within the U.N. building, but it's going to be tough to explain to the American people.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I can respect pacifism. I can understand suspicion about the limits and uses of American power. But the people talking about this as some extra-Constitutional war crime are either uninformed or Obama-haters looking for an excuse (Kucinich is the former, Glenn Greenwald the latter). And I challenge anyone who thinks "war is a lie" to ask the city fathers of Carthage what they think about the notion.
The way I look at it, those 155mm howitzers in that loyalist convoy bombed fifteen miles from the heart of Benghazi were on their way to turn that city into the Gaza Strip. I am glad they never made it, I am happy that they are dead, and I hope they burn in hell. The odds are even again and the rest is up to the Libyans themselves, which is exactly as it should be.
If the Libyan war ends well -- with Ghaddafi gone and a regime change to a government with much closer ties to the United States than Ghaddafi's (since we helped place them in power) -- then Obama's Libyan gamble will have paid off handsomely. If it deteriorates into a stalemate or loss for the rebels, Obama's gamble is not going to be seen as an intelligent move.
There is a third possibility. Daffy gone and an Al Qaeda government is installed in Libya...
You know who will get the blame for that as well, eh? :D
These risks still exist. And this is going to be the hardest subject Obama tackles in his speech -- how "Ghaddafi must go" is the real objective here, but is not part of the coalition's stated mission. Diplomatic nuance is fine within the U.N. building, but it's going to be tough to explain to the American people.
Truer words were never spoken...
Kudos...
Matt,
But the people talking about this as some extra-Constitutional war crime are either uninformed or Obama-haters looking for an excuse (Kucinich is the former, Glenn Greenwald the latter).
Agreed... Just as those people talking about Bush and some "extra-Constitutional war crime" were either uninformed or Bush-haters looking for an excuse.
In all the comparisons between Bush's war efforts and Obama's one small teeny weeny but oh so important a fact is missed.
Bush had twice the coalition partners that Obama had. Bush also had UN backing, but he ALSO had the backing of the US Congress.
Things would have gone so much better for Obama had he followed Bush's lesson in getting the American People on board..
Michale.....
Another point that I forgot to mention..
All the reasons that Obama gave for our intervention in Libya also apply to other places..
Syria most notably..
One has to wonder if Syria is next on the targeting list..
Michale......
Michale,
Things would have gone so much better for Obama had he followed Bush's lesson in getting the American People on board..
Actually, things are going pretty well for Obama as it is.
And, what happened in Iraq is most decidedly not what is happening in Libya ... not even close.
Actually, things are going pretty well for Obama as it is.
And, a week into Iraq 2003 went pretty well for Bush...
And, what happened in Iraq is most decidedly not what is happening in Libya ... not even close.
Actually the first week in Libya parallels the first week in Iraq quite closely...
All kicking ass and taking names and no casualties..
The only difference between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 is that, in 2003, the President had Congress and the American people COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY behind him...
Such is not the case with Libya in 2011.. Hell, Obama didn't even bother to inquire with Congress. He simply took orders from the UN...
Ironically enough, the stated objectives of Iraq 2003 were clear and concise. The numero uno objective was to eliminate Saddam Hussein..
Once again, Obama would do well to emulate Bush's actions in Libya.
Without all the messy garbage that came later... :D
Michale......
Michale,
You are reading this all wrong! You couldn't be more off base if you actually put some effort into it, my friend. Seriously!
The only comparison that one might presume to make between Iraq and Libya would entail traveling much further back in time than 2003 to the first Bush administration. The only difference between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 is E V E R Y T H I N G !
It's really quite amusing that you would think Obama took orders from the UN. You are quite obviously oblivious to the good work that Ambassador Rice was doing at the UN to secure a UNSC resolution that would receive UNAMIMOUS support from the Security Council with the abstention of Russia and China, among others. This was a truly historic accomplishment and an example of prudent and responsible leadership on the part of the Obama administration.
As for regime change ... that is a foregone conclusion. There is no future for the Gaddafi regime and steps are well underway to ensure that happens sooner rather than later.
When this is all said and done, I would love to have a discussion with you on how to go about regime change and you can make all the comparisons with the 2003 invasion of Iraq that you think are pertinent!
Chris,
And this is going to be the hardest subject Obama tackles in his speech -- how "Ghaddafi must go" is the real objective here, but is not part of the coalition's stated mission. Diplomatic nuance is fine within the U.N. building, but it's going to be tough to explain to the American people.
I hope no one was under the illusion that President Obama was going to lay out, in stark detail - you know, for all those who simply cannot read between the lines! - how the international coalition was going to go about helping the Libyan rebels remove Gaddafi from power.
I think he handled the 'regime change' question quite adeptly ... and with a great deal of ease, too! Not surprisingly, I would have to say. :)
The only difference between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 is E V E R Y T H I N G !
For example.......???????
to secure a UNSC resolution that would receive UNAMIMOUS support from the Security Council with the abstention of Russia and China, among others.
The last part proves false the first part..
There wasn't unanimous support from the UN Security Council as evidenced not only by the 5 abstentions (Russia, China, India, Germany and Brazil) but also based on the reactions from those countries within hours of the beginning of the attacks. Hell, even the much touted Arab League support withered within hours of the attacks..
As for regime change ... that is a foregone conclusion. There is no future for the Gaddafi regime and steps are well underway to ensure that happens sooner rather than later.
And yet, Obama refuses to even CONSIDER the case, let alone make the case..
When this is all said and done, I would love to have a discussion with you on how to go about regime change and you can make all the comparisons with the 2003 invasion of Iraq that you think are pertinent!
Works for me.. How much time ya got?? :D
I hope no one was under the illusion that President Obama was going to lay out, in stark detail - you know, for all those who simply cannot read between the lines! - how the international coalition was going to go about helping the Libyan rebels remove Gaddafi from power.
Sure woulda been nice.. I mean, it's not as if Daffy can actually DO anything about it..
Failure to plan is planning to fail..
And Obama failed to plan.. BIG TIME...
Michale.....
Looks like things aren't going too well for the Libya Rebels... :^(
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya
Michale.....
Michale,
The vote at the UN was unanimous, with five members shoosing to abstain from voting. Shall I define abstain? :)
The only difference between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 is E V E R Y T H I N G !
For example.......???????
Oh, let's see ... how about the fact that there were coalition boots on the ground in a relatively big way. I mean, come on Michale!
Or, what about the fact that the express reason for the Libya intervention is humanitarian with the sole goal to protect civilian life.
You really can't be serious.
And yet, Obama refuses to even CONSIDER the case, let alone make the case..
I guess you missed that part of the speech. Obama was crystal clear on the subject of regime change and how Gaddafi would be removed from power.
Michale,
Works for me.. How much time ya got?? :D
As much as it takes ... :)
Oh, let's see ... how about the fact that there were coalition boots on the ground in a relatively big way. I mean, come on Michale!
Not immediately. Just as in Libya 2011, Iraq 2003 started with an air campaign.
Regardless, this has seemed to have taken a turn somewhere..
My point was that, yes. Things are looking good for Obama so far... Just as things looked good for Bush a week into Iraq 2003...
But my overall point is still valid. Bush had more support for Iraq 2003, both from a domestic point of view and an international coalition point of view.
This is undeniable..
I also maintain that Obama made a big mistake by ignoring Congress and the American people and kissing ass at the UN. That will come back to bite him on the arse if things go south in Libya...
Michale.....
Further, a fact check of Obama's speech shows that many of his statements are not grounded in reality..
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFWACvAYca3zjwTnnLh1JG8l2Rtw?docId=f1839ff6dd0e4265b2952651c972f4a5
Michale.....
Damn, I really need to get all my notes together in one post. :D
Oh, let's see ... how about the fact that there were coalition boots on the ground in a relatively big way. I mean, come on Michale!
You can bet that the number of US boots on the ground in Libya number in the high hundreds or the low thousands..
Further, there are numerous reports of over 2000 US Marines heading into the Libya FEBA...
This, despite continuing claims from the Obama administration emphatically ruling out US boots on the ground..
Michale.....
Matt [1] -
Your last paragraph was excellent, especially your last sentence. Just wanted to say that.
Michale [2] -
Holy Moley, are we in agreement? Wow, I was expecting a broadside from your direction. You raise a good point about "what happens afterwards" which, while I think may be overstated (you raised the same point in Egypt, I believe), is still a very valid issue which should be discussed more (and which I have been giving short shrift, now that I think about it): Even if Ghaddafi goes, what next? At the beginning of the Arab Spring thing, I wrote about what "democracy" means for the region, and its drawbacks. Sounds like I should go re-read that piece.
[3] -
Or Yemen.
Liz and Michale [4,5,6] -
I've been pondering a weird thought recently -- Obama's actually using the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" the way it should have been done. Light footprint, nobody on the ground, air power. It's not a perfect fit, but it has been bouncing around in my brain, so I thought I'd toss it out there.
Michale [9] -
Let's see what happens when (as has been reported we're about to) we start using AC-130 gunships...
Or maybe the rebels will consider bypassing Sirte entirely and pushing on to Misrata. We'll see.
[14] -
I doubt there are any American boots on the ground in Libya, and I bet there won't be any in the future, either.
-CW
CW,
Holy Moley, are we in agreement? Wow, I was expecting a broadside from your direction.
Hay, I calls em as I sees em.. :D
I doubt there are any American boots on the ground in Libya, and I bet there won't be any in the future, either.
It's simply not possible that there AREN'T boots on the ground in Libya. (apologies for the double negative)
You have SFs lasing targets for missile strikes. You have Combat Controllers designating targets and other forces providing BDAs (Bomb Damage Assessments).
Regardless of what's being reported, there ARE U.S. troops on the ground in Libya...
It's simply impossible for there NOT to be...
Michale.....
Chris,
I've been pondering a weird thought recently -- Obama's actually using the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" the way it should have been done. Light footprint, nobody on the ground, air power. It's not a perfect fit, but it has been bouncing around in my brain, so I thought I'd toss it out there.
"There are known knowns. That is to say that there are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns or things that we know that we don't know. And, there there are the unknown unknowns - the things that we don't know that we don't know."
Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a bit but, that was the most profound statement that Secretary Rumsfeld ever made, to this day. I mean that sincerely - I'm not trying to be facetious, here! Sadly, he lives mostly in the world characterized by the latter category.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
Michale -
Oh, I don't know.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as Sherlock Holmes
Now, I won't deny there's some US equipment in the field. But the boots on the ground operating that equipment could much more easily be Egyptian, for instance... I'm just saying....
Liz -
Man, I really miss those Rumsfeld briefings, I have to admit. He was capable of saying literally anything at any time -- a rare capability in Washington. He didn't suffer the media gladly, either, so the combination of his naked contempt for the questioners as well as his "damn the torpedoes, I'm going to say what the Hell I want to say" attitude certainly made for some amusing moments, I cannot deny...
Heh.
-CW
Now, I won't deny there's some US equipment in the field. But the boots on the ground operating that equipment could much more easily be Egyptian, for instance... I'm just saying....
But you have to remember, all of this was done "on the fly"..
Using your Sherlock Holmes example, what is more likely?
That the US took the time to co-ordinate with Egyptian forces (forces I might add that are quite busy with their own little rebellions), made arrangements to drop equipment and supplies to said Egyptian forces, HOPED that said Egyptian forces would make it to target on time and then was trained enough to handle the equipment??
OR...
US Combat Air Controllers and Special Forces were dropped on location to do what they do best??
US Forces are on the ground in Libya. It's simply not possible for a successful campaign as we have seen without out them..
Don't get me wrong. I am not accusing Obama of lying or anything.. Boots on the ground is simply a natural and logical extension of the Air Campaign.
We had boots on the ground when those downed pilots were rescued, right?? However temporary it was, it is undeniable that, at that point in time, we had "boots on the ground in Libya".. But it's no big deal because that's simply a natural and logical extension of a rescue operation..
Michale.....
As far as arming the Rebels....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330
Looks like that has already been done....
Not sure how I feel about that.. Protecting civilians is one thing... Arming rebels that have Al Qaeda elements is something else...
Michale....
Michale,
You have SFs lasing targets for missile strikes. You have Combat Controllers designating targets and other forces providing BDAs (Bomb Damage Assessments).
Regardless of what's being reported, there ARE U.S. troops on the ground in Libya...
It's simply impossible for there NOT to be...
If what you say is true, then why is it that things are progressing so poorly?
If what you say is true, then why is it that things are progressing so poorly?
Things AREN'T progressing poorly for the coalition from a military perspective..
The No Fly Zone is a resounding success in and of itself..
From a political standpoint.......
"Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket??" :D
But that's politics for you...
Things ARE going very badly for the Rebels. That's because they are an undisciplined force with lots and lots of chiefs but not so many indians..
Unless something changes dramatically, the Libyan Rebels has roughly a week to live. Two at the outside.
Frankly, I don't know whether or not the Rebels SHOULD win...
Obama has painted himself into a perfect DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T corner.
Michale.....
Here's another one of those statements that Senator Obama made that President Obama would like to take back...
“But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history,”
-Senator Barack Obama, 2 Oct 2002
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-2002-toppling-brutal-dictator-dumb
Michale....
Michale,
Why on earth would President Obama want to take back that statement?
I hope you're not still trying to equate the sitution in Iraq in 2003 with Libya today.
Why on earth would President Obama want to take back that statement?
Because, in essence, Obama said that it's stupid to commit US forces to war, just to take down some ruthless dictator..
Ironic, considering that's exactly what Obama is doing in Libya...
I hope you're not still trying to equate the sitution in Iraq in 2003 with Libya today.
How is it not??
Besides the fact that Bush had a larger international coalition, a better UN Resolution AND the backing of Congress, the situations between Iraq and Libya are identical..
Michale.....
Besides the fact that Bush had a larger international coalition, a better UN Resolution AND the backing of Congress, the situations between Iraq and Libya are identical..
OK, ok... The "better UN Resolution" might be a stretch.. :D
Michale.....
So much for the "no boots on the ground" theory...
In Libya, CIA is gathering intelligence on rebels
Obama took a key step in that direction by issuing a secret authorization known as a presidential “finding,” designed to pave the way for the flow of money or weapons. News of the finding, signed several weeks ago, was first reported Wednesday by Reuters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html
Oh yes... Let's get the CIA going on this.. It's worked out so well in the past. :^/
Michale.....
Michale,
This is simply not debatable!
Iraq was about WMD (congressional authorization for the the use of US military force in Iraq) and regime change (what the Bush administration had in mind).
The UNSC Resolution 1973 is all about humanitarian intervention to prevent the loss of civilian life. Period.
The difference between what happened in Iraq 2003 and what is happening in Libya today is like that between night and day.
Now, is the removal of the Gaddafi regime a foregone conclusion here? Absolutely! But, it will have come as a result of muscular diplomatic and political efforts - not because of the successful implementation of a no-fly/drive/walk-zone on the forces of a brutal regime.
Michale,
The CIA in Libya - they were there before all of this began, you know - does not boots on the ground make, as you well know.
Liz,
A logical argument could be made for either side of that issue..
However, I think this is the important point to remember..
Vietnam started with just a few CIA "advisers"...
Michale.....
Michale,
Good God! Now you're comparing Libya with Vietnam!!!??? :)
:-)
Only insofar as to dispute the notion that we can send in the CIA and NOT have things escalate...
"NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA" will become Obama's "READ MY LIPS" moment...
Now, personally I believe that, if we are going to commit US forces to a theater of operation, then we should do it right to maximize the chance of success..
"They're talking about 'partial nuclear disarmament'.. That's like talking about partial circumcision. You either go all the way or you fucking forget it!"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
I am not totally signed off on the whole Libya mission to begin with. While I am all for kicking ass and taking names, the fact that there are AQ ties within the Libya Rebels gives me pause..
BUT....
But, if we are going to commit US forces to the TOP, then we need to do it right..
And doing it right means having boots on the ground.
And, to give credit where credit is due, Obama does appear to be trying to do it right, despite his public claims to the contrary...
Michale.....
Michale,
I would agree at this point that there may need to be boots on the ground ... and they had better damned well be Arab boots on the ground. And, I would also say that supplying weapons to the rebels, God love 'em, would be a major type knee-jerk mistake.
I do have a question for you ... it seems that the no-fly/drive/walk-zone is leaving a lot to be desired. Is that your impression, too?
I have no doubt that the Gaddafi regime is, to borrow a fun phrase, in its last throes. But, it will be diplomatic and political efforts by the international coalition involved in this that will pave the way for Gaddafi's departure.
Unfortunately, geopolitically speaking, the US is not in a position to put US "boots on the ground" in Libya and is in the process, rightly so, of at least appearing eager to take on a more and more supportive role militarily, as well as an increased diplomatic and political role, as this thing evolves.
The way in which US foreign policy has been conducted over the decades, and particularly during the previous administration has effectively dictated this relatively light US footprint in Libya, in particular, and in the Arab spring, in general. In a perfect world, US boots on the ground here would be a no-brainer and Gaddafi would have been history long before yesterday! But, alas, the world we live in doesn't come close to approaching perfection.
I do have a question for you ... it seems that the no-fly/drive/walk-zone is leaving a lot to be desired. Is that your impression, too?
It is, in the sense of what we were told.. But it's not in the sense that a No Fly Zone is simply one part of what SHOULD be a greater strategy..
It seems that the Obama administration was thinking that, if we slam dunk Daffy's air defenses and shoot up a few token tanks, Daffy would say, "WOW!! The Americans mean business! I better take my forces and go home!!"..
Daffy's a political animal, in addition to being a psychotic animal. He knows that Obama doesn't have the political capital at home to pursue a long drawn out slugfest in Libya..
What is working in Daffy's favor is that we're not talking years or months or even weeks. Daffy knows that Obama doesn't have the backing at home to go beyond a week or so..
Even as we speak, US air assets are being pulled from the theater. Tucking our tails between our legs and heading home. I am sure that any US ground forces in Libya will soon follow..
I know I am always the voice of gloom and doom for Obama, but unless someone steps up and whacks Daffy, I don't see how this Libya incursion can end well for Obama or the US.
Obama forgot that one valuable lesson we learned from Vietnam..
Don't enter into a war unless you have the political will to win it...
I have no doubt that the Gaddafi regime is, to borrow a fun phrase, in its last throes. But, it will be diplomatic and political efforts by the international coalition involved in this that will pave the way for Gaddafi's departure.
I wish I had your optimism.. But with the rebels begging for a cease fire, Daffy's hand has been strengthened considerably..
Daffy even faced down the mighty US Armada.. Yea, I know. WE know it's not an armada, but Daffy can spin it that way to his Arab neighbors.. The Arab League will now be falling all over itself to appease Daffy...
In the dictionary, under the phrase "Do More Harm Than Good" is a picture of the US's Libya Incursion...
No, barring Daffy getting whacked internally, the ONLY way that Daffy is going to leave is if the US commits the kind of forces we did in Iraq..
And we BOTH know that Obama, for all his faults, is not THAT stoopid...
The way in which US foreign policy has been conducted over the decades, and particularly during the previous administration has effectively dictated this relatively light US footprint in Libya, in particular, and in the Arab spring, in general.
There is something to be said for the previous administration and it's "heavy" footprints..
Daffy would NEVER have tried this crap under Bush..
And Bush NEVER would have let Daffy get as far as he had..
Once Daffy started butchering his own people, Bush would have been all over him like stink on shit, bringing to bear the FULL and COMPLETE onslaught of the US military.
Public opinion be damned!!
There is a lot good to be said for THAT kind of leadership...
Diplomacy and sanctions are all well and good.. But they must be backed up with SOMETHING besides more diplomacy and more sanctions or they are completely and utterly ineffective.. As real world experience shows us..
Michale.....
Iraq was about WMD (congressional authorization for the the use of US military force in Iraq) and regime change (what the Bush administration had in mind).
Actually, it was the other way around..
Taking out Saddam was the number one mission.. Confirming and destroying WMDs was secondary..
The stated objectives of the invasion were; end the Hussein regime; eliminate whatever weapons of mass destruction could be found; eliminate whatever Islamist militants could be found; obtain intelligence on militant networks; distribute humanitarian aid; secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure; and assist in creating a representative but compliant government as a model for other Middle East nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
The UNSC Resolution 1973 is all about humanitarian intervention to prevent the loss of civilian life. Period.
Not according to Obama..
Obama: Gaddafi must leave Libya now
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/02/2011226232530835912.html
But let's say that you are correct. That the Humanitarian Crisis in Libya warrants invasion..
Surely the exact same thing could be said for Iraq 2003, as the Humanitarian Crisis then was a LOT worse than it is now in Libya.
Michale.....
Michale,
Actually, it was the other way around..
Taking out Saddam was the number one mission.. Confirming and destroying WMDs was secondary..
I wasn't talking about what the number one mission was or what was secondary, just to be clear. Besides, as far as the powers that be in the Bush admin were concerned, there was only one mission that counted and we both know what it was.
My point was simply to compare and contrast UNSC Resolution 1973 and the AUMF in Iraq and to say that each had a completely different underlying basis. There is no debate about that.
What is debatable is how individual senators and congressmen and members of the Bush administration interpreted the AUMF.
Secondly, when Obama and other leaders say that the time has come for Gaddafi to go and that he has lost all legitimacy, they are not saying that the premise of UNSC Res 1973 is regime change in Libya. Because, clearly, it is not ... 1973 is ALL about humanitarian intervention and NOTHING about regime change by force. Plain and simple.
Let me put it this way ... the UN and NATO and various Arab countries have come together to support a humanitarian intervention in Libya with the sole purpose of protecting civilian life.
Now, as I am sure you know, there is more than one way to skin a cat(fish, of course). Similarly, there are many ways other than the use of military force to remove a leader from power who has lost all legitimacy.
But let's say that you are correct. That the Humanitarian Crisis in Libya warrants invasion..
Surely the exact same thing could be said for Iraq 2003, as the Humanitarian Crisis then was a LOT worse than it is now in Libya.
This is not at all what I said, for the record. I have never stated that the humanitarian crisis in Libya "warrants invasion" and I support the US position that there will be no ground invasion of Libya.
Finally,
Actually, I was finished ... :)
I wasn't talking about what the number one mission was or what was secondary, just to be clear. Besides, as far as the powers that be in the Bush admin were concerned, there was only one mission that counted and we both know what it was.
Assumes facts not in evidence..
We'll never know what was really in Bush's mind or in the mind of his senior advisers. Left Wing propaganda says this and Right Wing propaganda says that.
As usual, the facts are probably somewhere in the middle.. :D
I still maintain that liberating Iraq from Saddam was a good and legitimate reason for going in...
Just as liberating Libya from Daffy is also a good and legitimate reason for going in.
My point was simply to compare and contrast UNSC Resolution 1973 and the AUMF in Iraq and to say that each had a completely different underlying basis. There is no debate about that.
True.. But considering one was from the UN, a wholly corrupt organization and the other was the US Congress (a less corrupt organization :D) it's not surprising that they would read different, with different goals...
However, if one reads UN Resolution 1472 and UN Resolution 1973 as they pertain to Iraq and Libya respectively, you will see that both contain similar language to achieve similar goals..
Regardless of what was in Bush's head or what was in Obama's head or whatever nefarious reasons opposing political pundits can ascribe to each actions, the simple fact is Libya and Iraq are nearly identical insofar as the reasons for going in...
Iraq was a bigger humanitarian crisis than Libya is. So, if one supports Obama in his Libya decision based on the humanitarian goals, then one MUST support Bush in his Iraq decision.
Further, US strategic interests in Iraq are a LOT higher than they are in Libya.
In short, there are many reasons for going into Iraq that are not present in Libya. But, if one looks at humanitarian issues, then Iraq was MORE of a legitimate cause than Libya is...
Michale.....
Michale,
Assumes facts not in evidence..
That is non-serious.
I am afraid that you are becoming so completely obsessed with right-wing versus left-wing propaganda that you are losing your ability to critically analyze a situation and recognize what are the truth and facts of any given issue.
We don't have to read President Bush's mind in order to understand what happened in Iraq or why the Bush administration acted the way it did. (Nor do we have to read the mind of any president to understand to understand the policies and actions of any administration.)
However, if one reads UN Resolution 1472 and UN Resolution 1973 as they pertain to Iraq and Libya respectively, you will see that both contain similar language to achieve similar goals..
This is laughable. Seriously, Michale, you're making this far too easy.
Of course, these resolutions are both focused on humanitarian issues. But, we are comparing the invasion of Iraq 2003 and the humanitarian intervention of Libya in 2011, are we not? As you know, THERE IS NO UNSC RESOLUTION authorizing the invasion of Iraq to compare and contrast to UNSC Res 197 ... your attempt to compare RES 1973 with RES 1472 is, in a word, BOGUS!
So, if one supports Obama in his Libya decision based on the humanitarian goals, then one MUST support Bush in his Iraq decision.
This is the height of absurdity and a sad reflection of how this obsession of yours has affected your otherwise sound judgement.
Your non-serious and wholly disingenuous argument that the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a humanitarian intervention and therefore comparable - in any way, shape or form - to the humanitarian intervention in Libya authorized by UNSC Res 1973 is nothing more than an exercise in false equivalency ... not to mention, a total waste of my time.
We don't have to read President Bush's mind in order to understand what happened in Iraq or why the Bush administration acted the way it did. (Nor do we have to read the mind of any president to understand to understand the policies and actions of any administration.)
OK, I'll bite..
What happened in Iraq vis a vis the intentions of the Bush Administration??
As you know, THERE IS NO UNSC RESOLUTION authorizing the invasion of Iraq to compare and contrast to UNSC Res 197 .
Ex-Squeeze me??
Baking Powder??
You are claiming that there was no UN Resolutions that authorized the actions in Iraq taken by the Allied Coalition?
Is that what you are claiming??
Your non-serious and wholly disingenuous argument that the Iraq invasion of 2003 was a humanitarian intervention and therefore comparable - in any way, shape or form - to the humanitarian intervention in Libya authorized by UNSC Res 1973 is nothing more than an exercise in false equivalency ... not to mention, a total waste of my time.
OK, so NOW you are claiming that there WASN'T a Humanitarian crisis in Iraq??
ONE of us must have just stepped thru a dimensional doorway and landed in alternate reality..
The only question is which one...
There is only ONE difference between Iraq and Libya from a humanitarian crisis point of view. And that difference is the severity.. Iraq's humanitarian crisis was MUCH worse than Libya's...
This is undeniable...
Michale.....
Michale,
Is it possible for us to discuss what is happening in Libya without comparing it to Iraq?
Just one more thing about Iraq, Michale, before we leave it behind ...
The relevant UNSC resolution that, according to the Bush administration and others, helped form a legal basis for the Iraq invasion was UNSC RES 1441, not the one you referred to above when attempting to compare it with the recent UN resolution on the humanitarian intervention in Libya.
Here is the link for the full text of the relevant resolution on Iraq, ...
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement
And, here is the only relevant reference in that resolution that was used by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq invasion ...
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
Finally, I am not claiming, as you well know, that there was not a humanitarian crisis in Iraq for a very long time before the the US-led invasion in 2003. However, wholly unlike the intervention in Libya today, the US-led invasion of Iraq was all about WMD (AUMF) and regime change by military force.
Is it possible for us to discuss what is happening in Libya without comparing it to Iraq?
Probably not, because both actions showcase America's penchant for doing the right thing... :D
However, wholly unlike the intervention in Libya today, the US-led invasion of Iraq was all about WMD (AUMF) and regime change by military force.
No, that was just the propaganda that was used by the Left to beat the Bush administration over the head with over and over and over and over again, to this day...
The overriding reason for Iraq 2003 was to take out Saddam...
Just like the overriding reason for Libya 2011 is to take out Daffy..
Regardless, even if the top reason WAS to S&D WMDs in Iraq, what's wrong with that?? Isn't that a good reason in and of itself?
The fact that we acted on bad intel does not negate the fact that Iraq 2003 was the right thing to do.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing.
Michale.....
Michale,
You have become what you constantly complain about.
Scary, iddn't it? :D
Michale.....
Interesting note..
According to polling, 47% of Americans support Obama's Libya incursion.
This is compared to 90% of Americans who supported Bush's Afghanistan action and 76% of Americans who supported Bush's Iraq 2003 action...
Of course, I would never base a point on nothing but a poll..
But it is still interesting nonetheless...
"Furthertheless is NOT a word! Stop using it!"
-Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY
:D
Michale.....