|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 20, 2011 14:15:30 GMT -5
Every time I tried to be a white knight it didn't work out too well.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 20, 2011 14:25:05 GMT -5
My track record of predictions when it comes to political threads has been pretty good over the years, if I do say so myself. But I'm just lost on this one. Let's do a betting pool: how many here think that we will still be throwing ordnance and money around in Libya six months from now? How about a year? Powell was right: you break it, you bought it. There will be some manner of intervention going on for years. And what happened to the UN? I thought one of their core founding principles was non interference in internal affairs.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 20, 2011 14:29:15 GMT -5
Every time I tried to be a white knight it didn't work out too well. My "White Night" jobs eventually turned out well, whatever it was got fixed, but I'd piss a lot of people off getting it fixed. I didn't enjoy it much and I rarely got a thank you from anyone. They'd just call next time something was screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 20, 2011 15:19:54 GMT -5
Guess the Arab League's support is dwindling. www.cnbc.com/id/42176367Maybe if we could do a war without hurting anyone... Two-faced bastards. This is as old as mankind: ask any street cop about how dangerous domestic disturbance calls are. The cliche about pulling the abusive hubby off of the badly beaten spouse only to find her poking the cop with sharp objects moments later as attempts at cuffing the hubby commence is cliche by reason of legendary probability. Anyone who is surprised that the Arab league would turn against "the man" at the first sign of real intervention did not do a good job of paying attention to life around them as they grew up. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Mar 20, 2011 20:15:47 GMT -5
Well, if 'mericans are throwing ordinance money around in Libya in six months they can be happy to know that they won't be alone.
Our bloody prime minister is war struck and we will be pouring money down the Libyan toilet as well. And lots of Libyans will not have been murdered by their government. Priceless.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 20, 2011 20:45:16 GMT -5
I'm wondering about supporting Libyan rebels. Will it be like when we supported the Taliban, back when they were fighting the USSR?
(Forgive me if this was stated before, I started some serious skimming after page 4).
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 20, 2011 23:41:27 GMT -5
I'm wondering about supporting Libyan rebels. Will it be like when we supported the Taliban, back when they were fighting the USSR? (Forgive me if this was stated before, I started some serious skimming after page 4). I don't remember it being brought up and I think it is a very good question. Our backing one guy or group over another hasn't worked out very well over the last 60+ yrs. Considering our record at backing it would be hard put to have a worse outcome by doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 21, 2011 7:58:08 GMT -5
I must say the Libertarian influence on the American right is not a bad thing at all. Anti-war Republicans. Who would have predicted that?
Tim
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 21, 2011 9:16:29 GMT -5
Anti-war, at least after the Civil War, was their heritage...until they lost their way.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 21, 2011 9:51:26 GMT -5
What's different this time? I thought this was pretty good: A Very Liberal Intervention
By ROSS DOUTHAT Op-Ed Columnist
In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.
Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.
That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic. More: www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 21, 2011 12:32:25 GMT -5
I'm somewhat surprised at the reactions to all this. As I said before, I share the concern expressed in the opening post about how we decide which civil wars to intervene in, and maybe the answers have to come on a case-by-case basis.
Here, though, a remarkably strong consensus developed in the international community that without intervention, there would be a large-scale massacre. The French, British, Italians, Norwegians, Canadians, and Danes, among others, and the Arab League thought that intervention was necessary to prevent a bloodbath. I have a hard time imagining the US deciding not to join in such an effort, and I'm not particularly troubled that we did.
I'm also concerned that there appears to be no quick way to bring this intervention to an end. That's less of a concern than it would be with a unilateral ground war. Our involvement will apparently be limited and our share of the marginal cost will also probably be limited. We keep our forces ready for action anyway. Actually using that force does increase the cost, but I'd guess it won't be by a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 12:37:24 GMT -5
Too many variables for folks to have an informed opinion, so we tend to reboot to our default position as to war or no war. And, regardless of which path is followed, there will be plenty of criticism. And, this is one of those deals where the critics will always be "right", since they will urge the path not taken. But, the criticism that deserves no real consideration will be from those who originally supported the Iraq misadventure.
But, if Obama ends up looking for some "exit policy", he deserves even the unfair criticism. The best exit policy is never to have to look for one. If he just unleashes some missiles and bombs, and that is the full extent of US involvement, with no ground forces or occupation, he won't get in trouble. So, I guess he's counting on some kind of Kosovo repeat.
As to the opposition in Libya, I hope they don't end up thinking "watch out what you ask for". The airstrikes may give them the cover they need to finish of Ghadaffi. If not, it seems like it makes them dependant on US/foriegn forces to survive. Seems like that would eventually make them unpopular with a lot of Libyans, especially if there are some civilian casualties.
This is the classic "world policeman" scenario, saved, perhaps, because of some international support. That support will quickly evaporate, I suspect, and when it does, so should ours. So, I guess this will merely buy some time for the opposition to overthrow the government. I have no idea if they are capable of getting that done, but suspect it's a calculated gamble that they will. I'm hoping the other countries supporting the air strikes have a much better grasp on the situation than the US typically does.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 21, 2011 12:53:32 GMT -5
I'm somewhat surprised at the warmonger attitude here.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 21, 2011 12:56:38 GMT -5
"Too many variables for folks to have an informed opinion...." I agree with that. Although it's unfashionable to suggest that anyone knows more than the average American armchair general, I bear in mind that the leaders of the various nations that endorsed this effort had access to more intelligence and more specialized expertise than we do. Given the near unanimity of their conclusion, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness and good judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 21, 2011 13:09:51 GMT -5
But what intervention on the US's part has turned out well in the last 60+ yrs? Maybe Granada. I can't think of any others that haven't turned out bad either for the US or for those we were trying to help.
We have a terrible record.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Mar 21, 2011 13:14:19 GMT -5
... I bear in mind that the leaders of the various nations that endorsed this effort had access to more intelligence and more specialized expertise than we do. Given the near unanimity of their conclusion, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness and good judgment. Agreed, with regard to the first sentence; no question that the powers that be are better informed. As to the end of the second sentence, recent past track record strongly indicates need for concern. JMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 13:22:55 GMT -5
I'm somewhat surprised at the warmonger attitude here. Well, we are americans, after all. Without the warmonger attitude, we kind of lose our distinctive voice in world affairs...
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 13:37:24 GMT -5
the criticism that deserves no real consideration will be from those who originally supported the Iraq misadventure. Could we say, conversely, that whose who opposed the Iraq war and now support the Libya operation are to be similarly dismissed? I think such a formulation is nonsensical. The two situations remarkably different. Beyond that, if, as you suggest, we are to elevate consistency as our highest ideal of statecraft, consider this quote The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. (yes, that's Barack Obama in 2007)I bear in mind that the leaders of the various nations that endorsed this effort had access to more intelligence and more specialized expertise than we do. That echoes much of the argument that supported the Iraq war.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 21, 2011 13:43:52 GMT -5
You forget, Jeff. We elected the annointed one because he promised change. Domestically we've changed to Jimmy Carter and internationally we've changed our minds about what W did.
Can't wait to see what we flip-flop, I mean change, going forward.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 21, 2011 13:48:30 GMT -5
My flip-flopping is based on insightful analysis of the subtleties of each situation. The other guy's flip-flopping is craven opportunism.
Isn't that obvious?
|
|