Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) is ratcheting up his criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of Libya. In remarks obtained by National Review Online, Graham calls on the president to initiate a no-fly zone. He also chides Obama for his inaction. “Then-senator Obama relished the opportunity to label Iraq as President Bush’s war,” Graham recalls. “If he does not act decisively in Libya, I believe history will show that the Obama administration owned the results of the Qaddafi regime from 2011 forward.”
“One test in foreign policy — at least be as bold as the French,” Graham says. “Unfortunately, when it comes to Libya, we’re failing that test.”
“Allowing Qaddafi to regain control over Libya through force — without any meaningful effort to support the Libyan people — will create grave consequences for our own national security,” Graham continues. “The biggest winner of an indecisive America refusing to stand up to dictators who kill their own people will be the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime has already used force against their own people when they demanded freedom. If we allow Qaddafi to regain power through force of arms, it is inconceivable to me that the Iranians will ever take our efforts to control their nuclear desires seriously.”
“[The Obama administration’s] refusal to act will go down as one of the great mistakes in American foreign-policy history, and will have dire consequences for our own national security in the years to come,” Graham concludes. “I truly fear the decisions they are making today will come back to haunt us.”
not like taking foreign policy advice from this poor excuse for a senator is a great idea, though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQaddafi has controlled Libya for my entire life, how will his continued control have "grave consequences for our own national security"?
Six months from now, if Libya doesn't pose a "grave" threat to our national security, will Graham apologize for advocating a war that will be proven to have been pointless?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJason, I lean towards your opinion. The extreme measures that Qaddafi is taking towards the rebels is disconcerting, but I'm not sure the US needs to step off into this cesspool.
If anything, Obama is being consistent. He was against the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam because he didn't believe Saddam was a threat, and it doesn't appear he believes Qaddafi is a threat either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne interesting question is why the Egyptians have been mostly on the sidelines. They have never been great fans of Qaddafi. The Arab League has given them cover to intervene in Libya and they have the military power to stop Qaddafi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“One test in foreign policy — at least be as bold as the French,” Graham says.
Like Graham or hate him, that's a great line. Made me laugh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCommon sense combined with Constitutional integrity.
External Link
Graham and the Neocons should pay attention...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with Jason. Enforcing a no-fly zone on another nation puts more soldiers in harm's way, spreading our forces still thinner, and costs even more money. And to what end? Is Qaddafi a real threat to the U.S.?
Qaddafi is a local thug. Let his own people have the joy of a Ceausescu moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is astounding that we have elected officials still advocating for another war we cannot win in a Muslim nation. Asinine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo my mind, we've tried Sen. Graham's way for years - intervening in World affairs to gain World approval and stability. How has that worked out for us? I point you to the recent incident in Germany wherein the Muslim Kosovar killed two of our unarmed airman at an airport because they were American. No other reason. And weren't we the good guys who gave Kosovarians (sp) a homeland at the expense of American blood and gold.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuslims nations do not recognize the concept of gratitude to infidels. We are to be used and tossed aside, and that is all. I see no reason to spend more blood and gold in the Middle East. Drill, baby, Drill!
Can we please stop invading Middle Eastern countries? When does it stop?
We've sold enough military hardware to the Arab League - let them impose their own "no-fly zone".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy goodness, the conservatives seem to be catching on!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there an alternative to Graham in the upcoming primary?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender."
--Ronaldus Magnus
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I point you to the recent incident in Germany wherein the Muslim Kosovar killed two of our unarmed airman at an airport because they were American. No other reason."
Right. Because militant Islam would never interpret inaction or reticence as weakness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust watched a portion of a half hour video by an al Qaeda leader emploring Libyan rebels to kill Qaddafi...just like Senator Lindsey Graham is chiding our Chief Executive to kill Qaddafi. Will the good senator please acknowledge the specifics to the media, that he wants President Obama to supply arms to al Qaeda rebels in Libya, and provide No Fly Zone cover to al Qaeda rebels trying to overthrow Qaddafi? Can't Graham recognize the "dire consequences for our own national security in the years to come," if we provide arms to al Qaeda? And, he relies on a bogus correlation between the US response to this situation in Libya and our efforts to stunt the nuclear aspirations of Iran. What arrogant dishonesty!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's difficult to critize obama for not intervening in libya, mainly because there are so many other things to critize, but simply for the fact that we will not intervene in saudi arabia or bahrain because of self-interests.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's difficult to critize obama for not intervening in libya simply for the fact that we will not intervene in saudi arbia or bahrain out of self-interest plus obama can say he is consisent when he chooses to abandon the revolutionary movement in iran...again
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(Be at least as bold as the French) are with blood, treasure, and power which are not theirs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile the French are talking the talk they haven't made any move to implement a no-fly themselves. Are they really being bold by any measure?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Gaddafi regime is now openly taunting the West for its failure to impose a no-fly zone. Such a zone is impossible to impose without the military resources of the US. No wonder that a leading British politician asks, "where are the Americans?"
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse