Libya
-
As someone whose views of the role of the American military have changed considerably in the past 10 years, I find myself mostly confused by our latest engagement. On the one hand, it perfectly suits the narrative of all presidents generally erring on the side of intervention, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I feel like I've been doing my duty of making an honest effort to expect better from our leaders, and now we're getting something very Bush-y from the anti-Bush. I guess I don't have much to say on this topic except that, as much as I expect to look back on it as a perfectly normal event in modern American foreign policy, I find it immediately confusing.
Anybody have any strong feelings on this?
-
Bradley Manning fits loosely into this topic for me. Feel free to comment on that as well.
-
Well I'm waiting for all of the hypocritical libs to start crying out and protest their beloved messiah for going to war over oil.
But as we all know the Coward and Chief only okayed the attack on a few air traffic command towers while the Michella made him go on vacation while Rome burned.
-
I guess I'm not sure of your views on the military or how they've changed.
My take is that war sucks but will go on always and forever.
I think that the US military is a service we provide others in the world in exchange for their fealty even if it's hidden.
I think there is an military industrial complex and that I'd rather we were the beneficiaries than the Chinese.
I think if we're going to war it should be for the best interest of the United States.
I think Libya poses a problem.
First who takes over? I assume someone as bad as Gadaffi.
Second there's a good chance he stays in power.
By hanging back the US stands to be first in line to reap whatever profits to be made there.
OTOH if the rebels take over it looks like anarchy with France calling the shots.
Not an easy decision for whoever plans the actions.
What do you think?
WSS
-
>>What do you think?>>
I've been thinking about this for some time and the events in Lybia only confirm.
The longer Obama has been in office he'd validated so much of what W did.
The only difference, of course, is the sheeple have become deaf, dumb and blind.
-
Wars Should Be Declared by Congress, Not Merely Launched by Presidents
And like always everyone forgets about the Constitution and believe the Obammy is the King and can do as he wills.
-
I was getting excited watching him resist all the calls from people telling us to get involved, including many of the people who pushed so hard for the Iraq War, only to watch him get involved.
Not that we are involved, I look forward to his explanation of why and how long and what for and how much. It's nice to see Britain and France and Italy and Spain involved, but that still doesn't answer the questions he needs to answer. I understand that UN resolutions must be backed by credible force, and that this can be achieved at a minimal human cost to the US. It's not like Gaddafi's gang can hang with our military. But I did some back of the envelope math the other night and figured the first night cost us $80 million in cruise missiles alone - just to fire the missiles. Forget all the other expenses. It makes you wonder why we even bother arguing about NPR and the teachers unions. It's just a sideshow.
So I'll go on being discouraged, hoping that there's something coming from the White House that makes me feel more encouraged. But I'm not optimistic.
That said, Gaddafi is one of the true great scumbags on the planet and I certainly sympathize with the people who want to try something better, and want to help them. (Whoever they are. I have no idea.) I'm not sure this is the way, but we'll see. It'd be nice if he filled us in, we being the people whose name and tax dollars are being used to kill other people.
And the Bradley Manning stuff is disgraceful. I can't begin to understand the point of that. Obama's answer to the question posed to him about it the other day couldn't have been more perfunctory and disappointing.
I don't know who is running that communications department. (Well, I do, but...) Somehow they've succeeded in keeping the best communicator and most thoughtful president in recent history from communicating with the public. Most of that is on him, of course. But it's a total f'ing mystery to me.
-
I'm not trying to make light of the situation but does anyone else immediately think of Back to the Future whenever they hear about Libyans? I think they are still upset that Doc stole their plutonium.
-
I was in the military in the early 80's when Khadaffy(sp) the kook was rattling his saber. Ronnie authorized air assaults and the Navy/Air Force rocked
his natural world in a big way. Now, there wasn't the civil insurrections facing K then that he face now, but I suspect he merely wants to remind whoever really cares
that he is still around. Yet another 15 minutes of fame
-
I was getting excited watching him resist all the calls from people telling us to get involved, including many of the people who pushed so hard for the Iraq War, only to watch him get involved.
Not that we are involved, I look forward to his explanation of why and how long and what for and how much. It's nice to see Britain and France and Italy and Spain involved, but that still doesn't answer the questions he needs to answer. I understand that UN resolutions must be backed by credible force, and that this can be achieved at a minimal human cost to the US. It's not like Gaddafi's gang can hang with our military. But I did some back of the envelope math the other night and figured the first night cost us $80 million in cruise missiles alone - just to fire the missiles. Forget all the other expenses. It makes you wonder why we even bother arguing about NPR and the teachers unions. It's just a sideshow.
So I'll go on being discouraged, hoping that there's something coming from the White House that makes me feel more encouraged. But I'm not optimistic.
That said, Gaddafi is one of the true great scumbags on the planet and I certainly sympathize with the people who want to try something better, and want to help them. (Whoever they are. I have no idea.) I'm not sure this is the way, but we'll see. It'd be nice if he filled us in, we being the people whose name and tax dollars are being used to kill other people.
And the Bradley Manning stuff is disgraceful. I can't begin to understand the point of that. Obama's answer to the question posed to him about it the other day couldn't have been more perfunctory and disappointing.
I don't know who is running that communications department. (Well, I do, but...) Somehow they've succeeded in keeping the best communicator and most thoughtful president in recent history from communicating with the public. Most of that is on him, of course. But it's a total f'ing mystery to me.
That said, Gaddafi is one of the true great scumbags on the planet and I
And the Bradley Manning stuff is disgraceful. I can't begin to understand the point of that. Obama's answer to the question posed to him about it the other day couldn't have been more perfunctory and disappointing.
We talking about the allegations of abuse here?
WSS
-
Yep. Of someone who hasn't been convicted of anything yet. That seem to be done more out of spite than for any legitimate reason.
-
Kevin Drum, because he's almost always right:
"I'm not likely to blog very much about Libya, but I have to say there's an air of unreality surrounding a lot of the commentary that's starting to get on my nerves. Criticizing Obama for not consulting Congress is one thing. It's not as if this is some kind of unprecedented break with past practice or anything, but still. I get it.
But the "dithering" complaint? Give me a break. When did it suddenly become a personality defect to decline to intervene in a foreign rebellion the instant it broke out? Isn't there anyone left who appreciates the fact that Obama still retains a few shreds of anti-interventionist instinct and moves in a deliberate fashion?
Then there's the "why did he change his mind?" nonsense. Answer: because when events on the ground are moving fast, presidents change their minds. How? Usually by first holding a meeting and getting lots of input. Obama changed his mind last Tuesday in exactly the same way that every president since George Washington has changed his mind.
And then the "following, not leading" complaint. Look: if the only thing you actually care about is showing just how manly the United States can be, this makes sense. But that's a pretty stupid justification. There's just no reason why America should be required to take the leadership role in every military action around the globe.
Finally, there's all the handwringing over why we're intervening in Libya but not Bahrain or the Congo or Yemen. Please. Muammar Qaddafi is a terrorist and thug who's been on practically everyone's shit list around the world for decades. He has no allies, no friends, and not much firepower. Getting rid of him looks like a doable mission, and there's no one really opposed. Other places either don't look very doable or else their autocrats happen to be U.S. allies. Maybe that's not the most honorable reason in the world for leaving them alone, but it's a reason followed by pretty much every national leader since the first nomad planted a wheat field in Ur and settled down. We shouldn't act quite so wide-eyed and shocked that the United States does too.
Look: I'm not really happy about the intervention in Libya. Like a lot of people, I'd like to know what our actual goals are. What's more, I'm not sure it'll be the cakewalk that Hillary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy seem to think, and I believe that for a variety of reasons the United States is best served by not giving anyone an excuse for thinking that the current round of rebellions in the Middle East are backed by American power and interests. It's better for us to keep a pretty low profile right now.
But an awful lot of the criticism is just so unremittingly juvenile that I can hardly stand listening to it anymore. Time to grow up, people."
-
Pitiful.
Drum is a partisan hack - Obamao apologist, and Bush hater. Very much a fool - he really liked what Obamao said about the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. right.
Drum is almost always antagonisticly anti-war, and critical of conservatives.
Drum is almost always .... LEFT.
good grief. (hey Heck, got any fair and balanced stuff from moveon.org or salon?)
-
Ha. Yes, Cal, I'm sure you're very familiar with his work.
-
The Hypocrite leftwing media wont touch this.
And Heck will Ignore it as well. If this was "W" they would be screaming and burning their man bras in protest.
-
That could well be the case (probably is) but it's not an unreasonable defense.
I'd be damn surprised if a president McCain would have gotten the same love though ...
WSS
-
I think that we had to provide aircraft and intelligence to the international effort. I think we waited to long to make a decision on it. I don't know whom we are supposedly going to "hand over" the lead. I don't think this is over, but it's not really a big deal for the USA.
-
Being a non-affiliated voter and observer, I really hate to read about the nit-picking of some Congressional Republicans and the rationalization of some Democrats.
I said it before and I will say it again: every day Obama validates actions taken by George Bush.
Imagine if Bush was on 'vacation' - well, Obama has his mother in law with him - during a time like this?
Listening to NPR this AM, this latest venture is not without its questions and its potential can of worms.
I am not going to chastise Obama for doing this. Not sure if this is the right thing at the right time but I won't waste any time nit-picking about Presidential powers, etc.
I certainly won't waste any time talking about how this is so much different than what the ugly Republicans have been doing for years.
Politics make me sick.
"God is great. Beer is good. People are crazy." -
party hacks who support anything and everything their favorite political party does and will not support anything the "opposing" party does and vote strictly by the D or M by a candidates name make me sick.
-
Being a non-affiliated voter and observer, I really hate to read about the nit-picking of some Congressional Republicans and the rationalization of some Democrats.
I said it before and I will say it again: every day Obama validates actions taken by George Bush.
Imagine if Bush was on 'vacation' - well, Obama has his mother in law with him - during a time like this?
Listening to NPR this AM, this latest venture is not without its questions and its potential can of worms.
I am not going to chastise Obama for doing this. Not sure if this is the right thing at the right time but I won't waste any time nit-picking about Presidential powers, etc.
I certainly won't waste any time talking about how this is so much different than what the ugly Republicans have been doing for years.
Politics make me sick.
Being a non-affiliated voter and observer, I really hate to read about the nit-picking of some Congressional Republicans and the rationalization of some Democrats.
Politics make me sick.
John, are you saying the words "Don't Tread on Me"?
If so then that is why a lot of folks have joined the Tea Party movement. They are sick and tired of the status quo from both parties.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login