In theory, Libya was supposed to save lives, use the military for humanitarianism rather than mere national interests, showcase a new multilateral internationalism, enhance the reputations of organizations like the U.N. and the Arab League, contrast Obama’s careful planning with the plagued Iraqi occupation, reveal Europe as a full strategic partner, and bolster the national-security credentials of the U.S.
As of now, the misadventure has had the opposite effect on all counts: a) More are dying than before, and the “rebels” seem to be treating prisoners in Qaddafi-like fashion, while we are de facto engaged in targeted assassination to achieve regime change. b) While we are committed to a tertiary theater in Libya, there are far more strategically important hot spots like Iran and Syria that do not warrant even a rhetorical broadside, and far more acute humanitarian crises in sub-Saharan Africa. c) How does exceeding the spirit and letter of the U.N. and Arab League authorizations enhance the legitimacy or utility of those organizations? d) After several weeks, can anyone in the administration articulate the exact mission objective, the methodology to achieve it, and the desired outcome and the means to ensure it? e) Europe is being rendered impotent — its Potemkin military forces lacking the American facade that a traditionally U.S.-led and -dominated NATO used to provide; I doubt that it will ever again decide to initiate a military incursion without the assurance of the full resources of the U.S. behind it. f) As of now, I don’t think either Iran or Syria — or anyone else in or out of the region — is awed by U.S. resolve and military dynamism in Libya.
[citation needed]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama Team, circa Jan/Feb 2011: "Wow, we are really taking it on the chin. Budget bombed big time. All economics bad. Polls down. I mean, what the devil? You know what we need? A good old fashioned US Cavalry to the rescue type war, a 'humanitarian' effort, of course. THAT will give us the bounce we need, plus defocus these idiot citizens away from budget problems. So, where do we go.... Egypt? Noooo. Tunisia? Unh-uh... Libya? Hmmm, Libya....
BINGO. The independents will love us!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn purely humanitarian terms, the intervention appears to be leading to many more deaths in the protracted civil war than if Gaddafi had gone on in short order to regain control of Benghazi and the other cities and the hardcore rebels had fled to Egypt or Tunisia.
But not to worry -- McCain of Arabia will lead the rebel armies to capture Tripoli, and then on to Aqaba and Damascus!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo our European allies got exactly what they yearned for: a docile and hesitant U.S., submissive to their transnational rapacity. Have it and choke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, not to worry, Victor: within those tiny minds at the White House, I'm it's all still Bush's fault!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd what's that sound I hear from Congress?
(crickets chirping)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuhammar 7, Barry 0. How much you want to bet the next shoe to drop is Barry going all in with overwhelming force to "save face"?
d(^_^)b
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Has the Obama administration thanked the Bush administration for getting Qaddafy's WMDs out of there five years ago? I must have missed it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm waiting for a Republican candidate for President (other than the crank, Ron Paul) who will call for our immediate exit from Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have wasted way too much blood and treasure in all three places.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Progress" in motion, indeed.
Leave it to a professorial "genius" to potentially create a national security problem for us through this intervention, where no shred of one existed before-hand.
And it is that which breaks down any attempted analogy to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen do we get to start saying "Obama lied, people died"? I'm just sayin'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr Hanson,
With all due respect -- this intervention was planned by the White House to impart a negative effect.
If you wanted to take the US military and our national reputation down a peg -- this operation is succeeding!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the goal is keeping Barry's exquisitely delicate hands spotless, then Hillary should greenlight the House of Saud to settle their 2004 blood debt with Kaddafi.
External Link
Don’t be surprised if this (seemingly) random NATO targeting strategy is premised on flushing the rabbit into the crosshairs of Saudi-hired mercs.
Is that too much to "hope" for?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKaddafi has publicly VOWED to resume targeting civilian airliners.
External Link
The clock is now ticking again. Kaddafi’s typical retaliation turnaround time is measured in mere weeks or months.
Reagan (March ’86): Gulf of Sidra skirmish
Kaddafi (April ’86): Berlin disco bombing
Kaddafi (April ’86): TWA840
Reagan (April ’86): Operation El Dorado Canyon
Kaddafi (Sept ’86): PA73
Kaddafi (Dec ’88): PA103
Kaddafi (Sept ’89): UTA772
Contrary to historical myth, Kaddafi clearly bested Reagan.
Anyone imagine Kaddafi is now intimidated by impotent Obamateur gestures?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlthough I agree that the administration's policy doesn't appear to be getting it where it wants to be, I keep thinking of the 1999 war in Kosovo. There are numerous similarities between Libya and Kosovo: a humanitarian mission, Europe's ambiguous role and internal squabbles, "no ground troops" rules, etc. For a while it looked like that operation wasn't going anywhere either, yet at the end of the day the Clinton administration accomplished something pretty close to its original goals. I would venture to guess that it happened primarily because NATO, warts and all, was still orders of magnitude more powerful than Serbia and because Serbia's allies were few and relatively powerless.
It's conceivable that something similar may happen in Libya, where Gaddafi is also relatively weak and has few allies. The biggest difference that I see is that Milosevic could afford to lose Kosovo and remain in charge, at least in the short run. Gaddafi, on the other hand, is fighting for his regime's survival.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMeanwhile Mccain looks like a war-mongering fool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's useless, endless, unauthorized war in Libya that he launched against the advice of his Sec of Defense and Military chiefs is a total disaster. It has killed more innocent people that Gadhafi threatend, and as the much worse regime in Syria kills thousands of democracy protestors Obama does nothing, which shows everyone that his supposed humanitarian reason for going into Libya was just a lie. Once again Obama makes the U.S. look like it is led by an indecisive, weak, incompetent President. Our adversaries are on the move, and Obama has plunged our nation into serious economic and foreign policy decline!!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter Clinton missiled Monica, he missiled some far away location i no longer remember. I remember the movie title, though: Wag the Dog.
We are seeing Slick Barry wag the dog in the face of his accumulated policy failings. Create a Hollywood diversion.
Problem is, we really HAVE seen this movie before.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, Obama has his own quagmire, and one can only hope it extends for another sixteen months.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse