PDA

View Full Version : Obama Question about Obama's dithering in the mideast


chiefsnorth
03-28-2011, 12:23 PM
One aspect of peace through strength has always been that the threat of force can be just as effective, perhaps more, than using the force itself.


So we've seen in Libya our strategy seems to be... well, nuanced. One of the major disadvantages of this is that if we'd held back from acting, governments in Syria, Yemen, and other states might have held back for fear of reprisal if they started killing protestors. As it stands, we acted - sort of - and are... somewhat committed... to... something. But obviously our commitment is not strong, we have no clear objectives there, and it's all with 1.5 eyes locked squarely on the political consequences. There is no longer any credible threat of the use of force against any of these other countries.

I think if you're running Syria or Yemen or Bahrain, or any other state where protests are happening, you know pretty well that after the Obama administration has so skillfully clowned themselves on Libya, you've no worry that the US is going to come knocking on your door, so you can deal with protestors as you please.

You might say that Obama's "foreign policy" has helped to further destabilize the middle east, to use a favorite term from a few years ago, and undercut the very "populist" movements he seems to support.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 12:27 PM
One aspect of peace through strength has always been that the threat of force can be just as effective, perhaps more, than using the force itself.

So we've seen in Libya our strategy seems to be... well, nuanced. One of the major disadvantages of this is that if we'd held back from acting, governments in Syria, Yemen, and other states might have held back for fear of reprisal if they started killing protestors. As it stands, we acted - sort of - and are... somewhat committed... to... something. But obviously our commitment is not strong, we have no clear objectives there, and it's all with 1.5 eyes locked squarely on the political consequences. There is no longer any credible threat of the use of force against any of these other countries.

I think if you're running Syria or Yemen or Bahrain, or any other state where protests are happening, you know pretty well that after the Obama administration has so skillfully clowned themselves on Libya, you've no worry that the US is going to come knocking on your door, so you can deal with protestors as you please.

You might say that Obama's "foreign policy" has helped to further destabilize the middle east, to use a favorite term from a few years ago, and undercut the very "populist" movements he seems to support.

This thread makes two major assumptions:

That Obama is doing a really bad job in Libya, when in fact the job in Libya has met both of its criteria without problem (rebels are advancing as we speak), and is considering further involvement.

And two, our involvement in Libya promotes the possibility that other dictators will brutally crack down on their protesters.

I think both are... stretches, to say the least.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 12:34 PM
This thread makes two major assumptions:

That Obama is doing a really bad job in Libya, when in fact the job in Libya has met both of its criteria without problem (rebels are advancing as we speak), and is considering further involvement.

And two, our involvement in Libya promotes the possibility that other dictators will brutally crack down on their protesters.

I think both are... stretches, to say the least.

Your post makes the assumption that the criteria is right.

We may have done the wrong thing very well.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 12:37 PM
Your post makes the assumption that the criteria is right.

We may have done the wrong thing very well.

Besides the fact that you've botched the English in that first sentence up beyond recognition (I assume you meant "your post assumes we did the right thing in Libya"...), you'd be right.

That's why I'm hesitant to arm the rebels, which seems to be what the Obama administration is publicly flirting with doing right now. It came back to bite us in the ass a time too many. Including, ironically, now, in Libya with Ghadaffi.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 12:40 PM
The point remains, Bevis, we may have established the wrong criteria for "success" and may well have done an exemplary job of achieving the wrong objective.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 12:41 PM
The point remains, Bevis, we may have established the wrong criteria for "success" and may well have done an exemplary job of achieving the wrong objective.

Our criteria are (a.) no massacre in Benghazi, and (b.) no fly zone.

Both have been achieved in less than a week. Zero blood, some treasure, complete international support.

What objective would you have us strive for?

orange
03-28-2011, 12:46 PM
What objective would you have us strive for?

You know the answer to that.

Whatever Obama doesn't do.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 12:47 PM
You know the answer to that.

Whatever Obama doesn't do.

At this point, I'm just hunting for evidence that HCF isn't Newt Gingrich.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 12:48 PM
Our criteria are (a.) no massacre in Benghazi, and (b.) no fly zone.

Both have been achieved in less than a week. Zero blood, some treasure, complete international support.

What objective would you have us strive for?

I dont know.

I am not sure those you hold so dear are right or good either.

I am not sure what good comes from achieving the goals. We seem to have no idea who or what will replace Goofy. Will it be better? Better for whom? No one has a clue. How many massacres do we expect to prevent after he is gone? Over what period of time?

orange
03-28-2011, 12:52 PM
I am not sure what good comes from achieving the goals. We seem to have no idea who or what will replace Goofy. Will it be better? Better for whom? No one has a clue. How many massacres do we expect to prevent after he is gone? Over what period of time?

Put aside what comes after - no one knows. We DO know who Gaddafi is, though (however many times the spelling changes). He's a murdering thug, with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands, along with countless others.*

Will it be a good thing when he's hauled before the International Criminal Court and executed?


*Not including the thousands we saved with our missiles a week ago.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 12:58 PM
Put aside what comes after - no one knows. We DO know who Gaddafi is (however many times the spelling changes). He's a murdering thug, with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands, along with countless others.* Will it be a good thing when he's hauled before the Hague and executed?


*Not including the thousands we saved with our missiles a week ago.

That would depend on your perspective.
From his POV that will suck. From my, and I assume yours, Its a good thing.

Some folks deserve killin. Its really that simple. How to do the killin is the $1 billion dollar question. No one has the will or balls to cap the guy so instead we bring to bear all the guns and ammo and manpower and jets we can from far and wide.

The goal....as stated by those who seem to know, was to stop a massacre from occurring...well thats easy to say we prevented it if it does not happen. But difficult to prove it would have happened to begin with.

And the second goal to get the dude in front of the court or whatever...well, that has not yet happened either.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 01:19 PM
I dont know.

Exactly.

This has been your line, and will continue to be your line, for the endurance of the Obama administration.

I don't know what we should do... but once Obama has taken the first step, fire away.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 01:25 PM
Exactly.

This has been your line, and will continue to be your line, for the endurance of the Obama administration.

I don't know what we should do... but once Obama has taken the first step, fire away.

Well, we all have times when we just do not know what is right or wrong. I have no clue in this case. You seem very confident that we are doing the correct thing. Thats great. I wish I had your confidence and trust. I dont.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 01:29 PM
Well, we all have times when we just do not know what is right or wrong. I have no clue in this case. You seem very confident that we are doing the correct thing. Thats great. I wish I had your confidence and trust. I dont.

I'll set my watch to HCF figuring out he hates the Libya intervention.

It's only a matter of time.

BucEyedPea
03-28-2011, 02:17 PM
One aspect of peace through strength has always been that the threat of force can be just as effective, perhaps more, than using the force itself.
War is peace.


Freedom is slavery
Freedom is strength

and I will add for the 21st Century

Debt is wealth.


You might say that Obama's "foreign policy" has helped to further destabilize the middle east, to use a favorite term from a few years ago, and undercut the very "populist" movements he seems to support.

Agree as has the FP of Papa and Baby Bush.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 02:33 PM
Back to the OP:

It is silly to suggest that our actions in Libya have given other dictators in the ME any sort of advantage whatsoever. Our actions in Libya have kept the fire going in many countries that are pushing for democracy, including Syria which seems to be days away from falling.

Likewise, if we had done nothing, and Ghadafi succeeded in ripping off the skin and flesh of the rebel forces in a Benghazi bloodbath... it's over. These rebellions and protestors will turn back at the first sign of atrocity.

Libya, essentially, is a warning shot to the rest of the Middle Eastern dictators: there is a roof to what you are doing. You cannot exceed this limit, if you do, there will be international aid for your enemies.

That's the key to understanding our activity in Libya, with all its other considerations thrown in as well.

patteeu
03-28-2011, 08:10 PM
Back to the OP:

It is silly to suggest that our actions in Libya have given other dictators in the ME any sort of advantage whatsoever. Our actions in Libya have kept the fire going in many countries that are pushing for democracy, including Syria which seems to be days away from falling.

Likewise, if we had done nothing, and Ghadafi succeeded in ripping off the skin and flesh of the rebel forces in a Benghazi bloodbath... it's over. These rebellions and protestors will turn back at the first sign of atrocity.

Libya, essentially, is a warning shot to the rest of the Middle Eastern dictators: there is a roof to what you are doing. You cannot exceed this limit, if you do, there will be international aid for your enemies.

That's the key to understanding our activity in Libya, with all its other considerations thrown in as well.

Security forces have already killed several protesters in Syria (and Bahrain, for that matter). At what point do you think we'll decide to take military action in those places too? How is it possible that you don't understand that committing our forces in Libya makes it far less likely that we'll use them anywhere else in the region. 4 simultaneous wars (if you ignore the clandestine wars that are taking place at the same time)? Really?

ClevelandBronco
03-28-2011, 08:29 PM
It's all ONE BIG WAR! YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAA!

petegz28
03-28-2011, 08:46 PM
Our goal in Libya is simple and crystal clear if you listened to the President tonight. The goal is to remove Quacky but not really. We want him out of power but we won't take him out, we will just help a bunch of people we don't know take him out and see what happens afterwards. We aren't leading the mission even though the President said we were leading several times tonight. It's a NATO gig but we are in it though we aren't leading it, it is us that will lead the way for the world.

Clear as fucking mud.

HonestChieffan
03-28-2011, 08:48 PM
Our goal in Libya is simple and crystal clear if you listened to the President tonight. The goal is to remove Quacky but not really. We want him out of power but we won't take him out, we will just help a bunch of people we don't know take him out and see what happens afterwards. We aren't leading the mission even though the President said we were leading several times tonight. It's a NATO gig but we are in it though we aren't leading it, it is us that will lead the way for the world.

Clear as ****ing mud.

Nice summary.

petegz28
03-28-2011, 08:49 PM
Other point of note that was not mentioned tonight as to why Libya and not other countries.....O I L. To the tune of 2,000,000 barrels a day.

prhom
03-28-2011, 09:12 PM
You might say that Obama's "foreign policy" has helped to further destabilize the middle east, to use a favorite term from a few years ago, and undercut the very "populist" movements he seems to support.

I'm reading an interesting book right now called "The next 100 years" by George Freidman. Two of his themes in the book are that; U.S. foreign policy is aimed at destabilizing potential threats, and that U.S. presidents are basically forced into making certain decisions regardless of what they wish they could do. It's interesting to see it play out here in Libya as we're not going to take decisive action to occupy Libya and they will never be any more united than they were under Gadhafi. The tribal factions will be divided and the country will be unstable for a long time or will spilt up.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 09:14 PM
Security forces have already killed several protesters in Syria (and Bahrain, for that matter). At what point do you think we'll decide to take military action in those places too?

When it reaches Ghadafi levels, apparently.

It's more of an art than it is a science.

Direckshun
03-28-2011, 09:19 PM
Our goal in Libya is simple and crystal clear if you listened to the President tonight.

*fires up the quote-o-matic*

The goal is to remove Quacky but not really.

The end game is Ghadafi's departure. But that's not for us to do.

We want him out of power but we won't take him out, we will just help a bunch of people we don't know take him out and see what happens afterwards.

We're not even helping them. We're just making sure they don't get subjected to another massacre.

We aren't leading the mission even though the President said we were leading several times tonight.

We're leading the mission. The intervention was mapped out by the United States, the United States pushed for the 10-0 approval by the Security council, the United States has conducted well over half of the missions, and the United States is calling the shots.

It's a NATO gig but we are in it though we aren't leading it,

We are leading it, we're just not conducting this intervention unilaterally.

it is us that will lead the way for the world.

The world will make up its own mind over time, but we do what we can, and will only be responsible for what we decide to do/not do.

Clear as ****ing mud.

When you get your information from sources other than Drudge and talk radio, the world makes less sense. But that's the world for you.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 06:43 AM
When it reaches Ghadafi levels, apparently.

It's more of an art than it is a science.

Oh, I see. Trust Obama. His incoherent foreign policy can't be understood by the rest of us, but be assured that in his superior wisdom it all makes sense. :shake:

HonestChieffan
03-29-2011, 06:51 AM
Bolton had a great summary on Fox but I cant find the damn thing.

patteeu
03-29-2011, 06:56 AM
Bolton had a great summary on Fox but I cant find the damn thing.

I wonder if he's going to run for president. I don't have any illusion that he'd have a chance at the nomination, but I'm sure he'd have some very interesting things to say during the campaign.

mlyonsd
03-29-2011, 06:56 AM
Oh, I see. Trust Obama. His incoherent foreign policy can't be understood by the rest of us, but be assured that in his superior wisdom it all makes sense. :shake:

When it comes to nation building Obama is proving he might have Bush on speed dial for advice so it could be worse.

HonestChieffan
03-29-2011, 07:03 AM
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4612647&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

The Mad Crapper
03-29-2011, 07:18 AM
Other point of note that was not mentioned tonight as to why Libya and not other countries.....O I L. To the tune of 2,000,000 barrels a day.

98% of which goes to Europe.