U.S. and Allies Strike Libya

[coolian2]

no shortage of kool aid here

 

[mobvok]

No it doesn't matter, because they both have our best interests at heart in fighting for freedom

YouTube - Team America - Freedom isn't free

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

I'm sure he's under heavy protection, but has there been any thought about assassinating Gaddahfi? Cut off the head of the snake..

 

[Canadiens1131]

I'm sure he's under heavy protection, but has there been any thought about assassinating Gaddahfi? Cut off the head of the snake..

CIA has no time for that, they're still expending considerable manpower setting up sexy honeypots for Jules Assange to dip his digits into.

 

[mobvok]

Link

The shelling of a market in Abidjan on Thursday, which killed at least 25 people and wounded 40, may be a crime against humanity, the United Nations said Friday. The United Nations blamed forces loyal to the incumbent president, Laurent Gbagbo, whose refusal to cede power set off the crisis. “Such an act, perpetrated against civilians, could constitute a crime against humanity,” the United Nations said in a statement on Friday. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the Security Council to “take further measures with regard to the Ivorian individuals who are instigating, orchestrating and committing the violence.” Mr. Gbagbo denied his forces were involved in the attack.

 

[WinnieThePoo]

No it doesn't matter, because they both have our best interests at heart in fighting for freedom and ending the tyrrany of a brutal dictator who is killing his own people.

Good for Obama! I support him 100% in this case just as I supported Bush in Iraq.

bs , it's all about oil , but when enough people will die , dust will settle , and we'll have another "democratic " president set up in "libya/northK/iraq/afghanistan/etc " ,

 

[AliEnvy]

YouTube - George Galloway on Wests Libya intervention (19Mar11)

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, I suppose.
I tend to think - that anything beyond air support is too much from the US standpoint.
Let everyone else handle this one, if at all possible.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

CIA has no time for that, they're still expending considerable manpower setting up sexy honeypots for Jules Assange to dip his digits into.

Appears that the CIA might not have the time, but the navy does...

 

[mobvok]

Gortney offered no details on how long the period of "coming days" might be. But he did offer details on just how much of the Libya operation is being borne by U.S. forces. Early in the briefing, Gortney said the attack involved "110 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from both U.S. and British ships and submarines." Later, a reporter asked: "Can you specify how many British ships were involved compared to the U.S. ships?"

"We had one British submarine," Gortney said.

"And the rest were all U.S.?"

"Yes, ma'am."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: 'Unique capabilities' mean virtually all-American war in Libya | Byron York | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Hooray multilateralism!

 

[Basstrap]

Apparently Obama is talking about handing over leadership of the campaign to either the French of British in a couple days. That would be an interesting and very prudent move, and I dare say a good one.

 

[mobvok]

I thought the US wasn't even supposed to be leaders in the first place, it was gonna be an Arab League/UN operation. Obama and Clinton kept flogging "international" and "coalition" in their speeches.

The New York Times is confused about our mission, too:

WASHINGTON — All the deliberations over what military action to take against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya have failed to answer the most fundamental question: Is it merely to protect the Libyan population from the government, or is it intended to fulfill President Obama’s objective declared two weeks ago that Colonel Qaddafi “must leave”?

I don't read this and think all the allies need is a few cruise missiles to finish the Colonel off:

The rebels’ weaknesses were readily apparent. With each new shelling, many fighters jumped in their cars and raced north, toward Benghazi. Few professional soldiers were among them, just skittish volunteers more enthusiastic than battle-savvy. By evening, more cars were racing toward the battle than away from it, cars filled with men who said they heard Ajdabiya had already fallen.

They were not deterred by the news that it had not, and said they would attack in the dark. Their inexperience seemed to matter little: now, other armies were doing the hard work for them. “We’re waiting for the airstrikes,” said Khaled Soghayer, who idled his truck, with a heavy machine gun in the back, far from the battlefront.

The British have some wacky notions about republican accountability in a democracy:

On Monday, as the Prime Minister promised the Commons on Friday, Parliament will vote on a substantive motion supporting the proposed military intervention in Libya.

I don't understand why the US Congress is so eager to shirk responsibility.

 

[maycocksean]

The posts in this thread only strengthen my deep discomfort with this latest military intervention.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Apparently Obama is talking about handing over leadership of the campaign to either the French of British in a couple days. That would be an interesting and very prudent move, and I dare say a good one.

I would think they at least want to do this. Show support, lob a few missiles in, then turn around to the British/French and say "There, happy?" and GTFO as fast as possible.

Pretty clear that the US wanted no part of this, for several smart reasons, and were pretty much arm twisted into it.

I bet there's a bit of a shitstorm going on behind the scenes in Washington.

 

[AchtungBono]

Apparently Obama is talking about handing over leadership of the campaign to either the French of British in a couple days. That would be an interesting and very prudent move, and I dare say a good one.

Absolutely......we wouldn't want him to miss a single minute of his golf game now, would we?

 

[coolian2]

if only that slacker worked as hard as dubya

 

[Axver]

if only that slacker worked as hard as dubya

He's definitely not working as hard as Dubya did at getting days off. Pathetic!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Cameron is Bush in this scenario, at a very loose stretch. Actually, not at all really. There is at least some logical argument for this.

 

[Basstrap]

Absolutely......we wouldn't want him to miss a single minute of his golf game now, would we?

the US being involved, or not involved at all, will have no impact on the mans golf game. The whole golf thing is a silly obsession anyway, whether directed against Bush or Obama.

What is obvious from this thread is that there is no appetite in America for more meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. And they are right to be cautious. I think the current president may be toying with isolationism in some way, but keeps getting dragged in.
US involvement in these revolutions almost risks contaminating the outcome - which, I think is a reason why they kept Egypt at arms length during its revolt. There is still a lot of suspicion in the Middle East about American motives in these events. There is a fine line to walk.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The countries that were out in front on No Fly Zones and whatnot were those with large strategic interests in Libya (particularly the British – who were jumping up and down about this almost literally from Day 1 – huge deals up in the air if Libya turns into a chaotic civil war state for any length of time.) Humanitarian – bullshit/whatever - it’s always strategic/economic interests.

The US have no interests in Libya, have to take a more careful and consistent line in regards to these uprisings due to their entanglement elsewhere, and of course would have been painfully aware of how raising a US flag anywhere near another military operation anywhere, but particularly in an Islamic country, has a far greater weight attached to it these days (to put it lightly.) So the sensible position is: harsh words, but no missiles. You’ve got Gates and others out there saying the idea is plain stupid.

But there’s been a series of steps/arm twisting:

- No doubt the British, French etc have been trying hard to convince them to get in on this both for military and legitimacy reasons. No doubt a part of that argument has been of the “Come on, need we remind you of our support for your adventures over the past decade?” variety. You owe us.
- Didn’t sound like that was working, but once the loyalist forces in Libya starting seriously gaining against the rebels, and Gaddafi starting talking openly about how he was going to get down on a bit of mass slaughter, the US position is probably starting to look like it might end up, in hindsight, looking a little… off colour. Awkward if Gaddafi goes through with it. This was only about a week ago and was probably where a shift began.
- The seriously rare unanimous Arab League vote on the No Fly Zone gives cover to the US flag popping up again over military action in the region.
- What more do you need? being a possible message. Obama/US are reluctantly “in”.
- But the potential for this to turn into a complete mess, both on the ground in Libya and in policy for the US within the region, is still incredibly strong. So yeah, I could totally see them wanting to play a very small part early, and then hand it all off and get out of there.

I do think there’s a good argument for intervention by someone, but there are huge risks involved with it. It could really, seriously drag. This is closer to a civil war than it is just some nutty dictator setting his military on his people. They’ve obviously got some confidence in the rebel leadership as a possible alternative, but getting them into that position will probably take more than just a few days of missile strikes. Could be a long shitfight. But hey, if the British and French think its worth it for oil or polls or whatever, then, whatever.

But for the US, this is pretty dumb. Obama has been very good in keeping a consistent public line across all of these of supporting the democratic movements and condemning any violence along the way, and has been pretty good in what levers he’s pulled or buttons he’s pressed when (publicly, and it seems privately too) in terms of ordering the regimes around, but overall, the consistent line of “But this is their thing” has been the most important part. But they’ve broken that now, and methinks it could lead to serious trouble ahead for the US.

 

[AchtungBono]

The countries that were out in front on No Fly Zones and whatnot were those with large strategic interests in Libya (particularly the British – who were jumping up and down about this almost literally from Day 1 – huge deals up in the air if Libya turns into a chaotic civil war state for any length of time.) Humanitarian – bullshit/whatever - it’s always strategic/economic interests.

The US have no interests in Libya, have to take a more careful and consistent line in regards to these uprisings due to their entanglement elsewhere, and of course would have been painfully aware of how raising a US flag anywhere near another military operation anywhere, but particularly in an Islamic country, has a far greater weight attached to it these days (to put it lightly.) So the sensible position is: harsh words, but no missiles. You’ve got Gates and others out there saying the idea is plain stupid.

But there’s been a series of steps/arm twisting:

- No doubt the British, French etc have been trying hard to convince them to get in on this both for military and legitimacy reasons. No doubt a part of that argument has been of the “Come on, need we remind you of our support for your adventures over the past decade?” variety. You owe us.
- Didn’t sound like that was working, but once the loyalist forces in Libya starting seriously gaining against the rebels, and Gaddafi starting talking openly about how he was going to get down on a bit of mass slaughter, the US position is probably starting to look like it might end up, in hindsight, looking a little… off colour. Awkward if Gaddafi goes through with it. This was only about a week ago and was probably where a shift began.
- The seriously rare unanimous Arab League vote on the No Fly Zone gives cover to the US flag popping up again over military action in the region.
- What more do you need? being a possible message. Obama/US are reluctantly “in”.
- But the potential for this to turn into a complete mess, both on the ground in Libya and in policy for the US within the region, is still incredibly strong. So yeah, I could totally see them wanting to play a very small part early, and then hand it all off and get out of there.

I do think there’s a good argument for intervention by someone, but there are huge risks involved with it. It could really, seriously drag. This is closer to a civil war than it is just some nutty dictator setting his military on his people. They’ve obviously got some confidence in the rebel leadership as a possible alternative, but getting them into that position will probably take more than just a few days of missile strikes. Could be a long shitfight. But hey, if the British and French think its worth it for oil or polls or whatever, then, whatever.

But for the US, this is pretty dumb. Obama has been very good in keeping a consistent public line across all of these of supporting the democratic movements and condemning any violence along the way, and has been pretty good in what levers he’s pulled or buttons he’s pressed when (publicly, and it seems privately too) in terms of ordering the regimes around, but overall, the consistent line of “But this is their thing” has been the most important part. But they’ve broken that now, and methinks it could lead to serious trouble ahead for the US.

Earnie thank you very much for clarifying some points,. You helped put that in perspective for me and I really appreciate that. Now I understand things a little better than before.

 

[cobl04]

I probably don't know enough about the situation to make a comment, but I support the intervention, in spite of the huge risks involved. The US' line has been "days not weeks" in terms of their frontline involvement, but surely there's no way it'll be as simple as that...

Imagine being a Libyan civilian. No human should ever have to live through something like that. Thank god i live where I do.

 

[kramwest1]

Imagine being a Libyan civilian. No human should ever have to live through something like that. Thank god i live where I do.

No doubt that the oppression in Libya was awful, but we do seem to pick our intervention based on their oil reserves.

BTW-
Would it be to much to ask for the richest Americans to cough up a billion dollars per Tomahawk missile launched?
I think it would be a nice gesture and pay for our intervention plus a little extra.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

If we're involved there because of what he's doing to civilians then why don't we send US military to the Congo and other places where civilian women are being raped in large numbers to try to stop that?

 

[Irvine511]

Cameron is Bush in this scenario, at a very loose stretch. Actually, not at all really. There is at least some logical argument for this.

but the share the lack of an endpoint, a way out.

am really, really not happy about this at all. i'm with Gates.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Michael Moore rips Obama over Libya - The Hill's Twitter Room



Moore, a frequent critic of President Bush for launching the Iraq War, unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military's mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, using a mantra coined by Charlie Sheen:


It's only cause we're defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That's why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy

And we always follow the French's lead! Next thing you know, we'll have free health care & free college! Yay war!

We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How's that going? #WINNING !

Khadaffy must've planned 9/11! #excuses

Khadaffy must've had WMD! #excusesthatwork

Khadaffy must've threatened to kill somebody's daddy! #daddywantedjeb

Moore also suggested that Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009:

May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy

 

[mobvok]

Charles Freakin' Krauthammer:

"I would simply say the United States is not omnipotent. If we were, we would be everywhere, and we would be consistent, and we would stop every slaughter on the planet, and we would be in the Congo right now. And why aren’t we in the Ivory Coast? Ivory Coast had an election, the dictator lost the election, he refused to accept the other side, he’s been shooting people in the streets. I mean, where are we going to go with this? I think you have to have two things in order to act. You have to have a moral justification, you’re protecting slaughter, maybe preventing a genocide. But you also have to have a strategic rationale. Otherwise, we will spend ourselves into penury, into destitution, and into very great sorrow by deploying all over the world. So I mean, it seems to me we have to be extremely hard-headed as well as idealistic about this. You have to have a moral rationale and a strategic one. If you only have one and not the other, you don’t act,"

 

[BonosSaint]

If we're involved there because of what he's doing to civilians then why don't we send US military to the Congo and other places where civilian women are being raped in large numbers to try to stop that?

I'm pretty sure that the atrocities that happen to women have rarely been considered a significant reason to risk much of anything (and to be fair that's often the reaction toward the world's vulnerable in general) Women are the diplomatic and defacto trade-off.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm pretty sure that the atrocities that happen to women have rarely been considered a significant reason to risk much of anything

That is such a sad statement-because it's true

And places like the Congo don't affect our economy I hate to think that way, but..

 

[anitram]

but the share the lack of an endpoint, a way out.

am really, really not happy about this at all. i'm with Gates.

Same here.

At least let's be honest about why they're all of a sudden gung ho about freedom in Libya and not in the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Ivory Coast.

If the French and the Italians and the Brits want Libyan oil, they should do the job themselves. What possessed Canada is incomprehensible, but then you remember that we have a man who thinks he's a King for a Prime Minister (whose government was, incidentally, found in contempt today, first time that's happened in Cdn history). Lovely.