home

The Obama Doctrine

In an excellent post, James Joyner points to Dan Nexon's post on Obama's speech:

I might be wrong, but I don't consider the "Humanitarian-intervention-against-militarily-weak-fossil-fuel-producing-countries-in-strategically-important-regions-that-are-also-located-near-many-large-NATO-military-bases-and-are-run-by-dictators-who-kind-of-piss-us-off-and-have-no-powerful-allies Doctrine" the stuff of Grand Strategy. But if you read between the lines, that's pretty much the gist of what Obama had to say tonight.

I do not find it the stuff of coherence or prudence. But the ad hoc nature of this foreign and military policy decision does not bother me. I am not big on "Grand Strategies" either. However I do object to the lack of logic and coherence regarding the Libya intervention. In my view, each ad hoc situation must have logic and coherence. I do not see them in the Libya intervention.

There are two major objections I have to the rationale for the military intervention provided by President Obama last night. The first is the manufactured notion that events in Libya will quell the "Arab Awakening" in Tunisia and Egypt (oh BTW, who knows how that is going to turn out.) What is the evidence for that? Was Gaddafi planning on marching into Egypt? Surely not. Moreover, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, and dare I say it, Saudi Arabia, are not that far away. More . . .

The second objection I have is that the policy implemented is, as far as I can tell, to intervene and heighten a civil war in Libya . . . but not too much. This surely is not the most humanitarian approach, as it seems designed to maximize the bloodshed that such a civil war will lead to.

Let's hope for the best, but let's not pretend that the Libya intervention is steeped in coherence and prudence. I hope it works out. I'm not convinced by the decisionmaking process and the decision itself.

One silver lining is that President Obama seems to have drawn a line in the sand on ground forces (though arms shipments to the insurgents seems a distinct possibility (not very humanitarian you might say.)) It seems that Obama has gone as far as he will go in Libya.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's Speech on Libya | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jimmy Joyner seems (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:01:47 AM EST

    100% spot on.

    I agree (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    Mark the log book! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    .

    BTD and I are in agreement!  

    BTW, I would have felt better if Obama had said that we owe Qadaffi for Lockerbie, et al and this opportunity allows us to settle overdue accounts, or that we are going to stay out of this mess.  But claiming that followership of the French, Brits, and the Arab League is some kind of presidential leadership makes him look like either the liar or the delusional fool.

    Parent

    I do not think (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    beign persuaded by the French is a bad thing per se, But being convinced by anyone to do an imprudent thing is not good.

    Parent
    I don't think it is necessarily bad either (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:32:15 AM EST

    Nor necessarily bad in this particular case.  Just don't claim leadership when you are the last one on the bandwagon.

    Parent
    Wait a damn minute. Didn't we learn (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    the U.S. put together the Libya coalation?

    Parent
    When the would be coalition (none / 0) (#154)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:51:10 AM EST
    .
    ...is banging on your door begging you to join as leader and you finally stop dithering and go along, that is not leadership.

    Parent
    Seems to be several lines of thinking (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    on how this particular coaltion came into being:  Analysis of the formation of a coalition

    Parent
    I wonder why we have (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    people supporting regime change in Libya who did not support it Iraq.

    After all, Hussein killed millions of his own people.

    Could it be because one President is Obama and the other was Bush?

    Nah. No way.

    Millions? Large exaggeration not backed by facts. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by TJBuff on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    Just like calling what Gaddafi was doing genocide.

    Parent
    Each situationis different (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    What might make sense in Libya might not make sense in Iraq.

    FTR, I oppose(d) both. But that is not the basis of my objection to the Libya Intervention.

    Parent

    I see...you get different situations (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    but I dont' :)

    Parent
    Clearly you do (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    unless I am misremembering you as an opponent of the Iraq Debacle.

    Parent
    I get the situations I'm allowed to have :) (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:25:49 AM EST
    Genocide is genocide (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    stopping is stopping

    politics is politics

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    Genocide occurred in Rwanda, Iraq in the 80s, and Bosnia and Kosovo.

    Not happening in Libya, strictly speaking.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    How many other civil wars do we want to become involved in?

    Parent
    The argument is (none / 0) (#191)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    we stopped it before it happened.  We don't want genocide to happen in order to prove that genocide happened.

    Parent
    Somehow (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    that reminds me of Major Major Major who was always out when he was in.

    That's also the same argument that says 10% unemployment is okay because our actions prevented a depression.

    What's next? Let's invade England. I think they are planning on wiping out the Irish,

    Parent

    Saddam was contained (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    He was an old toothless lion in the genocide department.

    Parent
    Tell that to the people he was (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    killing.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    So when do we take a stand in the (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    killing of others BTD?  Because from where you stand right now, that position is never unless they are directly attacking your person.

    Parent
    Not true (none / 0) (#138)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    BTD did not say that. He, and I, just wonder what was it about Libya that made it more important than, say....any other country with killing going on.

    The humanitarian excuse does not hold water unless there are other issues not being discussed. And it is these other unknown issues that bother me wrt our foreign policy aims.

    Parent

    Not True (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    He wants us to address Saddam killing any one single perosn on all levels now.

    Parent
    How about... (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    when the world wants to hire us as policemen?

    Parent
    Who wants to hire you? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    The large scale massacres were (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    more than a decade before the U.S. invasion.

    He may have been killing and torturing people in his prisons....but that is not all that unusual.

    Parent

    So no one should overthrow their oppressors (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:35:05 AM EST
     because it might lead to bloodshed? This sounds like the WWII rationale that we needed to stay out of it when Hitler was waging his war of domination.

    There is a tsunami forming in the middle east that began  when the people of Tunisia rose up and threw off the bonds of a dictator in order to govern themselves. If America stands for anything at all  it is the right of a people to govern themselves so when a people tries to topple a dictator we need to stand up and cheer. In Tunisia and Egypt we ( and the world)  were lucky that the dictators chose to run and did not engage in wholesale slaughter of their own people because they could have done just that and that would have put a quick end to these upstart rebellions.

    Then Libya tried to follow suit and we had a choice to just stand by and try the usual ineffective diplomacy crap and let Quaddaffi put down his rebellion as he brutally told us he would do or to act. The UN got off their duffs and acted and even the Arab league gave us (the west) the go ahead. End of story. To not act would have been unconscionable in the same way that Europe did not cover itself in glory when they sat around for two years and let the killing go on in the former Yugoslavia because "things might get messy".

    The question to be asked is not why we didn't and/or don't act to defend the downtrodden in every situation but what we should do in each individual country.  And trying to bolster the rebels in Libya was the right thing to do both from a humanitarian stand and because in the long run we want more countries in the middle east(Saudi Arabia?) to follow the example of Tunisia and Egypt. Quaddafi winning would have stopped this awakening and nipped it all in the bud. Not in Egypt or Tunisia but anywhere else the people were fed up. No matter what happens now in Libya we at least stood for principle and tried to help a people throw off a cruel dictator.

    The US can't turn a country into a democracy which is why I objected so strongly to the invasion of Iraq and think that war was completely wrong (  I believe I differ from BTD in this because I thought he  supported that war). But when the people of a country rise up we have an obligation, no a duty to speak up and support them.  Sometimes that will mean just condemnation or sanctions but on rare occasions it will mean sending in the military to help in small ways. If the US or the west invaded Libya and did the fighting for the people that would be the wrong way to proceed as well. The best we can ever hope for is to level the playing field as much as possible.

    So mark me as supporting this action and still being strongly against the Iraq invasion.


    Get to work (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    A lot of oppressors to overthrow.

    Parent
    there are many. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    this one, IMO, was one we could do.  the UN was onboard with the arab league and that made it possible to prevent a massacre with little danger to our forces.   it was the right thing to do even if we cant take out ever oppressor.


    Parent
    The one in the Ivory Coast (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    would have been much easier to do with no aftermath.

    This one can become a mess.

    BTW, you have not done it yet.

    Also, Saddam Hussein was done too.

    Even under the logic of "doing the ones you can," the Libya intervention fails.

    Parent

    I might remind you that the UN is involved in (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    the Ivory Coast and has been involved since around 2004. The only reason they have had an election or brokered any deals is because of outside involvement. The Ouattara the winner of the election survives because of the presence of UN troops. Ivory Coast is messy and all the intervention has not solved the problem but it is moving in the right direction albeit in fits and starts. So I am not exactly sure why you think we/the west has not been involved in that situation. The UN is an imperfect tool that does not mean it shouldn't be used.

    Parent
    does the (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    Ivory Coast have oil?

    Parent
    Explain how that effects your thinking (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:53:26 AM EST
    not my thinking (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    but anyone who doesnt think the oil in the region is playing a part in our willingness to "help" these countries is ignoring the elephant in the room.  IMO.

    is that right?  of course not.  its true.  and my opinion is whatever it takes.  I wish other autocratically ruled countries had something the military wanted and needed so that would be as high on the list of those deserving of help but its is not so.

    I have no problem with this country using its vast resources to prevent a massacre.  oil or no oil.  but I dont make the decisions.

    Parent

    Explain how you tihink (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    it effect asnyone's thinking.

    I'm curious to hear your theory on this.

    Parent

    North Korea (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    Howdy: Completely Agree (none / 0) (#195)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    The argument that we can't do the right thing everywhere shouldn't mean that we shouldn't do the right thing somewhere.

    Parent
    As (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:04:13 PM EST
    an American citizen, I'm feeling pretty oppressed right here.

    I'd like to overthrow the patriot act, detention without charge or trial, the sending of troops first and talking to us about it later...

    The hypocrisy is so stunning it is mind-boggling.

    Parent

    not our job (none / 0) (#136)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    as I made clear - it is only our job if the people in the country actually stand up and start something themselves.

    Parent
    Libyans (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    And what makes the "rebels" in Libya any more "the people" than the ones supporting Gaddafi? The rebels were incredibly organized and took over major cities in days. This is not like the Egyptian or Tunisian protests.


    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#163)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    Who has determined that the rebels are the good guys?
    And if they are the good guys, why are they good?
    So far, the only info is that they want to overthrow Gaddafi.

    From the point of view of the US, Gaddafi was a very bad guy, then he was OK, now he's bad again.

    It just seems like one big crock.

    Parent

    In fact, one of the rebel leaders fought (none / 0) (#168)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    against the United States and for the Taliban in the early days of the Afghan War. This is hardly the group of semi-secular young people from Egypt (and that isn't going so well either).

    Parent
    And one of them was related to (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Meteor Blades and was a United States citizen...

    Parent
    Another interesting juxtaposition: (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    AECOM.....I've never heard of them (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    Probably should study them huh? Why was our State Department onboard with AECOM?  What's the connection?

    Parent
    AECOM is dedicated to improving (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    infrastructure in Libya, whatever that means.  

    Parent
    Do we have an alphabet agency (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    dedicated to improving infrastructure in the U.S.?

    If we do, their dedication is sorely lacking IMO.

    Parent

    You are sort of out of money (none / 0) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    And all of your natural resources are harder to get at...too much red tape and paperwork, and probably an honest days labor.  It is better to go trolling for flush dictators at this point.

    Parent
    Maybe not for infrastructure (none / 0) (#201)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    (that would be under Dept of Transportation, Dept of Interior, HHS, Education, labor, etc.)

    We do have the US Institute of Peace

    The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to help:

    Prevent and resolve violent international conflicts

    Promote post-conflict stability and development

    Increase conflict management capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide

    The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by directly engaging in peacebuilding efforts around the globe.

    Of course, that too has problems:

    Last month, the austerity-minded House of Representatives voted to cut funding for the institute.

    My question is: What took it so long?

    As greatly as I admire the staff members at the institute and their professional commitment to increase peace and decrease violence, their work is necessarily little more than a balm on our delusional belief that our government places a high priority on peace. The institute's record has been all gums and no teeth.

    The overlords of Congress wouldn't have it any other way. If they did, they would appropriate real money -- meaningful money, in the billions. Instead, the institute's budget has been among the most trivialized in Washington: At the current $43 million, it is one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Pentagon's budget and less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the State Department's. The current military and security budget, ever rising, is about $2.4 billion a day, a sum 10 times greater than the institute's total budget for 27 years. In that time, the institute has yet to earn even a line in a State of the Union address.

    The institute was established in 1984, when President Ronald Reagan took time out from arming his favorite juntas to reluctantly sign the legislation that created it. He then lectured its directors at their first meeting that "in the real world, peace through strength must be our motto."

    The institute has obediently followed those orders and avoided examination of the military policies of the U.S. government. 



    Parent
    Always scary when the (none / 0) (#192)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    filthy rich coporations want to improve the infrastructure of a dictatorship.  They did that in Egypt and began starving the people who lived off of trash collection and recycling.  And the new sweat shops that somehow came into operation paying slave wages began to piss people off too....there was some new infrastructure in Egypt :)

    This is why it is important for corporations to pay taxes in America and create American jobs that Americans want and need, and this is why all corporations should eagerly embrace their role in creating economically stable and nourishing societies....otherwise there is no socially safe places for them to take the rich people's money and build factories with.  The world seems on the brink of being unable to put up with their $hit anymore.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    You though I supported the Iraq Debacle?

    What universe have you been living in?

    Parent

    I can see why bornagain (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    might have thought that about Iraq, since (iirc) you backed Obama's doubling down policy of more troops in Afghanistan, and before that you described your politics as "centrist hawk" or "hawkish centrist".

    Parent
    Then you are blind (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    Say what you will about Iraq, but its resemblance to Afghanistan is nonexistent.

    I'm finding the comments in this thread to be just well, incoherent is the nicest thing I can say about them.

    I'm getting nothing from this discussion.

    I'm done with it.

    This last comment is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

    Parent

    Gee, resemblance (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    nonexistent?  Wasn't it George W Bush who initially sent our troops to both countries?  To fight terrorism?

    Just saying it wasn't unreasonable for ...  oh never mind -- talking past each other at this point ...

    Parent

    Resemblance (none / 0) (#140)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    The resemblance after 8 years is similar. The resemblance of the reasons for getting involved were worlds apart.

    We went into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaida as a response to the attack on the US.

    We went into Iraq....umm....never did really figure that one out. The rationale kinda moved around depending on which facts got refuted.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#161)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    phooey.

    Afghanistan was a warm-up for the invasion of Iraq.

    WTF did Afghanistan really have to do with 9/11?

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    I've never been sure about that either. (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    The twin-towers attackers were Saudi, in U.S. on overstay of student visas.  

    Parent
    They were Al Qaeda (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:45:37 PM EST
    Who empowered Al Qaeda and led Al Qaeda then and where was Al Qaida operating from?  Who sheilded them and defended them?  If I join an Al Qaida group in Afghanistan should someone fighting Al Qaeda attack the United States?  Because I was born here and went to school here?

    Parent
    I support Afghanistan (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    and opposed Iraq with a vengence too.  I don't understand why anyone would be stunned by that.

    Parent
    So if you were President (4.50 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    And you could have stopped the Gaddafi genocide machine without any loss of life to your own troops and very little to the Libyan civilians you would have still done nothing?  Because a civil war could maybe kill more people dying on their feet than a genocide might while they die on their knees?

    I would have done what Obama did.

    If you were President would you have intervened (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:02:29 AM EST
    in the Ivory Coast? Syria? Bahrain?

    You are simply begging the question.

    The answer is, NO, I would not have intervened in Libya, because I think we are creating a bigger mess and a bigger civil war where even more lives will be lost.

    By contrast, I would have intervened in the Ivory Coast. A much simpler and less consequential in realpolitik terms, operation.

    A pure humanitarian operation actually.

    Parent

    Each would have to be weighed out (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    individually.  You can't always help people or peoples in ways that aren't devastating to the self.  To do so is considered Co-dependent :)  When you give aid when you are able though and someone truly needs it to preserve their life, that is life affirming.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    The Libya intervention is not supported by coherence, prudence or, in my view, a success strategy.

    I'm hoping for the best, but the decision seems wrongheaded to me.

    FTR, while I would have supported intervention in the Ivory Coast, I would not in Syria.

    The difficulty and consequences of the operations are substantially different.

    Parent

    not likely (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    to have the arab league on board with syria either, right?

    Parent
    I'm going to say this (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    and then maybe duck, I don't know how truly relevant the Arab League is when they have so little legitimacy in the eyes of their own people right now.

    Parent
    PR value (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    No moral value.

    Parent
    pr value is important (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    in this case.  IMO.  these countries have enough reason to hate us.

    Parent
    Arab League PR value (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    seems minimal.

    But obviously this is not a bad thing.

    Parent

    but beyone that (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    what Obama is doing is actually making them see us in a different way.  see the experience of the airmen who crashed and we saved by Lybians.

    and in my opinion this is important and absolutely can have a long term effect on our safety and stability.

    Parent

    One airperson was helped by (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    friendly Libyans.  The other called in air support, which annihilated an armored vehicle.  Two helicopters swooped down to rescue sd. airperson.  

    Parent
    Help me out here in trying (none / 0) (#35)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    to understand your position on US intervention.  Earlier in another post you suggested the US needs to have a clear national interest at stake before intervening militarily.  

    What US national interest would be at issue in an Ivory Coast intervention?

    Parent

    The general US interest (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    in the well being of people in the world. I have stated that from the beginning.

    Your actual question, if I may be so bold, is why the well being of people in Ivory Coast and not Syria?

    The cost to US and its interests is the difference.


    Parent

    So as I understand it, (none / 0) (#87)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    the BTD Doctrine actually seems to be a unique combination of the narrow realpolitik of a Zbig Brzezenski and a broader human rights concern of a SoS Cy Vance -- and so the end result is a rather breathtakingly sweeping basis for intervention for just about any reason, the notion of "well being of people" being about as all-inclusive a basis as exists.  

    The only limitation being cost to the US (not sure what you mean by "its interests" which sounds like circular reasoning as we're back to supporting the "well being of people", a stated "interest" of the US in your view).

    Parent

    Depends on each situation (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    I think I said that above in my post.

    Parent
    I have absolutely zero disagreement (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    with that view. In fact, I'd say it's exactly mine. We have just formed a different judgement about this particular circumstance.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#137)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    but I think the addition of both local and international support tips the scales between Libya and Syria.  Its the difference between say the Balkans (and/or Kosovo) and the Congo- both were/are humanitarian crises but unlike the Congo- the Balkans represented a region of the in which the US could act easily in concert with allies to prevent a tragedy whereas the Congo (and/or the Sudan) represent regions where any intervention would likely be almost entirely American and with little to no support and even less of a possibility for easy victory.

    Parent
    Not sure I agree (none / 0) (#149)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    The Europeans have great interest in Africa. I think perhaps we did not have so much economic or geopolitical interest.

    Parent
    me too (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    Genocide in Syria? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    Do you agree with Lieberman that we should the U.S. should intervene to help Syrian protesters if officials there turn weapons on the public?  

    Syrian security forces used tear gas and live ammunition to disperse more than 4,000 people protesting for reforms in the city of Deraa. Human rights activists say that more than 150 people have been killed in the 11 days of the pro-democracy uprising so far. link


    Parent
    We have no pull with the Syrian government (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:15:49 AM EST
    as we did in Egypt.  And Baathist Sunnis think even less of us.  The Libyan rebels sought out help from us, I don't see anyone in Syria wanting anything from us at all.  I think we are universally despised and hated there :)  How can I be of help there to people fighting for their freedom?

    Parent
    So did the Mujhadin in Afghanistan (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    in the 1980s. How did that turn out?

    Parent
    We were heading in that direction (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:20:52 AM EST
    in the other thread...and that didn't turn out so well.  Here's my thing though, Afghanistan in that respect is our foreign policy phuck up and Libya belongs to many parties of the EU...they should have to deal with what happens from here, not us.  Our usefullness has been fully reached.

    Parent
    Last I looked (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    US was greatly involved in Libya.

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    As the leading member of NATO (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:29:38 AM EST
    seems to be the latest iteration. But for 10 days, the leading militasry force in the intervention.

    That does not get undone.

    Parent

    How does that not get undone? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:31:44 AM EST
    France was not always with us in Afghanistan and they are a part of NATO.  Being a part of NATO does not mean you have to show up for all NATO missions at all times.

    Parent
    The US will show up (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    There can be NATO operations without France. There can not be NATO operations without the US.

    Parent
    Completely Untrue BTD (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    We are not the whole sum of NATO, not even close.  We are just the guys who enjoy throwing our military weight around the most.  And the other militarys of the world don't mind at all if the Americans want to do all the work.  The rest of NATO is fully capable of preforming this No Fly completely without us.

    Parent
    Without U.S. (none / 0) (#142)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    This is exactly my position. It could have been done without the U.S. Even the French alone could beat up Libya.

    So why then did Obama involve us? So the GOP and Blue Dogs couldn't complain about how he was relegating the US to backup world policeman?

    The hypocrisy in Washington is immense. Cut spending, but get the military involved in unnecessary things. It kind of makes it easier to say "See? we need MORE military spending...now let's cut Medicare some more".

    Parent

    Man...some people (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    know zero about the force that other NATO countries have power over.  I tend to think that this is another branch of American Exceptionalism.  Some Americans really think they are the only serious global military force, and that is not factual nor is it a smart thing to think.

    Parent
    Even Obama is not claiming that (none / 0) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    rest of NATO will be preforming this No Fly completely without us.

    NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars. link

    The U.S. Navy reported that two of its aircraft and a guided missile destroyer attacked a number of Libyan coast guard vessels, rendering them inoperable, in the port of Misrata. It said the Libyan vessels had been "firing indiscriminately" at merchant ships. link

    US Ambassador, Susan Rice said that the U.S. has not ruled out arming the rebel forces in Libya.

    Parent

    This is some of what bothers my husband (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    It doesn't bother me that they use our surveilance aircraft or our tankers to refuel because we have better stuff in those areas.  We don't need to be flying any fighters though.  There is no reason for that.

    I don't think the American people will feel the same way that I do though.  They have so many struggles of their own, the only thing they will stand for is something quick and merciful.  If Obama continues on the road that he spelled out here I don't see how he extricates himself from the conflict.  If the economy goes farther South, his signing up for commitment in Libya will sink him farther much faster.

    But he obviously believes that nothing profound that will anger the American people even more will happen where the economy is concerned.  Sometimes I can't believe how blind and wrong he is about that.

    Parent

    Okay, but then what? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    Does Qaddafi (the agent of the predicted genocide) get to stay?  If he does, how do you keep the genocide from happening in the future?  If Qaddafi goes, who or what fills the vacuum?  Would that make things better or worse (consider the US's terrible track record of picking winning governments in the ME)?  Who are we protecting?  Were they really at risk of genocide or not?  

    I have read in Time magazine and elsewhere that what is now considered "Free Libya" (the Eastern region) is where Al Qaeda got a lot of soldiers to join their mujahideen insurgency in Iraq.  This place also provided Al Qaeda help in Afganistan.  Are we helping out people that has killed our soldiers in two countries?  Are these people who tried to stop bringing democracy in 2 countries interested in democracy in Libya?

    If I were Obama, I would want answers to these questions before I did this and lay the strategy and reasoning out to the American people and Congress.

    Parent

    A No Fly zone prevented Saddam (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:17:28 AM EST
    from committing any more genocides against the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South.  A No Fly is not that costly once it is established, and this one belongs to France and Britain.

    Parent
    Does it end there? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    No it does not.

    Parent
    Nothing ends until it ends, to include me and you (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    How many problems in life are not solved...only contained?  Containing thieves and murderers is often a part of leading a functional life and the rest of us being able to live.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    strategies have to think about how things end, even in the middle term.

    WWII ended. Korea ended. Hell, Vietnam ended. And Iraq will end. Afghanistan will end. And so will Libya.

    Where will we be then is the question that must be asked, especially when embarking on military operations.

    imo of course.

    Parent

    If we have done the humanitarian thing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    and now we leave the stage, doesn't our place in this end there?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    There is a Pottery Barn rule. I think it applies.

    This is especially so since the US KNEW it would not end with the no fly zone. They knew mroe would come after.

    Having the next phase under the NATO banner is no cover imo.

    Parent

    Just because Colin Powell said something (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    once....history has revealed that that doesn't make it so :)

    Parent
    I think history (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    has revealed it to be so.

    It certainly is so in Iraq.

    Parent

    We invaded Iraq and then (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    we DeBaathified Iraq and blew up needed untilities in Iraq too, after we fired everyone.  We did everything we could to destroy the social fabric of Iraq because the real goal that was never stated by the oil guys was to take over Iraq, much different circumstances than Libya.

    Parent
    How does Libya turn out? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    You say "not your problem."

    But you got involved anyway.

    Incoherent are the arguments I have read in this thread.

    I was hoping for better.

    Parent

    It is the Buddhist in me (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    I can do a good thing and let it go :)  It is the good things...the selfless things...that create the environment for healthy love and changes in the universe.

    Parent
    I'm not a Buddhist (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:19:25 AM EST
    I am a Stoic.

    Parent
    Or even a Cynic (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    Assuming Gaddafi stays and (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    NATO successfully enforces no-fly zone, but Gaddafi's agents round up the rebels and either imprisons or disappears them, what should the U.S. do at that point?

    Parent
    I think we have done all we can (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    and all that we are capable of doing.  The rebels though aren't going gently into anything though oculus, as new reports show.  They are standing up for themselves and fighting for themselves, you can't just "round up" such people easily anymore and slaughter them.  Particularly when we have removed your means of military force.

    Parent
    How about rounding up their relatives (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    instead?

    Parent
    You would have to fight the rebels to do it (none / 0) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    unless it was cities and regions they don't control.  The control quite a bit right now.

    Parent
    These rebels must be ubiquitous. Why (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    do they need us?

    Parent
    The rebels didn't have (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    military equipment to fight Gaddafi's with, meaning that without intervention he would have used all that military hardware to slaughter them with along with many innocent civilians too.  It was underway when the intervention began.

    Parent
    I agree this is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    troublesome.  but I still dont think we should have allowed him to "go house to house killing everyone".

    Parent
    And what about other dictators (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    "going house to house?"

    You are acquiescing to a lot of that it seems to me.

    Parent

    see (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    comment #59

    Parent
    the fact that we (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    can not stop them all is a lame reason not to stop the ones we reasonably can.

    Parent
    Ivory Coast (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    could be easily reasonably done. Why no worries about them for year?

    The humanitarian argument does NOT hold water.

    Parent

    It holds water for me (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    I'm not against doing something where the Ivory Coast is concerned either.

    Parent
    Ivory Coast (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    BTW, "Stop him" means what? Regime change? Saddam might have engaged in whole slaughter again in the future.

    Hurrah for Bush?

    China might do slaughter again.

    Russia might do slaughter agsin.

    Your answers are so unsatisfactory that they defy belief.

    Parent

    Taking on China and Russia means (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    outright war with countries that can go toe to toe with us.  Each situation must be weighed out singularly.  How can you help anyone in China or Russia when it would mean that you yourself will be annihilated?  Even real NeoCons, not fake ones like Captain Howdy and Me, would never dream of such a thing.  George Bush may have dreamed about it, but it only happened in his dreams.

    Parent
    No pottery barn rule in Libya (none / 0) (#203)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    If all we do is establish a no fly zone--we gave the rebels a chance....

    If we keep our ground troops out, it will be much easier to leave Libya to the Libyans....

    Our stated goal was to prevent a massacre in Benghazi--that has been done.  No nation building--unless someone else wants to do that.  Or regime change via military force.

    And if we really let the no fly zone expire, we still would have eliminated Qaddafi's air power and thus leveled the playing field to a certain extent.....

    It is risky in that a protracted and more bloody civil war could result.   But then maybe not.

    Parent

    Another benefit of the military (none / 0) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    action in Libya.

    "The lead role the United States is playing in the military action against Libya threatens to scramble an emerging consensus over the need to trim defense" spending. "It is just plain vanilla that it will make it harder to cut defense in the near term," said Republican economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin. link

    Isn't that handy. A built in excuse for not cutting the defense spending and cutting more from domestic programs.

    As Willie Sutton so famously said, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:04:16 AM EST

    ....cutting more from domestic programs.

    "That's where the money is."

    Parent

    Lets look at where the money really is (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    Discretionary spending 2010

        *
      o $663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
      o $78.7 billion (−1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services
      o $72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation
      o $52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
      o $51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
      o $47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
      o $46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education
      o $42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
      o $26.3 billion (−0.4%) - Department of Energy
      o $26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture
      o $23.9 billion (−6.3%) - Department of Justice
      o $18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
      o $13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce
      o $13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor
      o $13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury
      o $12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior
      o $10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency
      o $9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration
      o $7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation
      o $5.1 billion (−3.8%) - Corps of Engineers
      o $5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank
      o $1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
      o $0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration
      o $0.6 billion (−14.3%) - General Services Administration
      o $19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies
      o $105 billion - Other link

    I'll save you the time to add all the other amounts spent on discretionary spending and tell you the amount spent on defense is more than what is spent on all other categories combined.

    Parent

    Discretionary spending vs total spending (none / 0) (#171)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    Better check total spending.  "Discretionary spending" is spending that people pretend can never be restrained.  In reality 100% of US spending is voted on every year.  IOW, it is all discretionary.

    With transfer payments at over half of all federal spending and defense at under a sixth, it is pretty obvious that a deficit of 40% of the budget could not be eliminated or even cut in half by zeroing out all defense spending.

    Link

    Parent

    An inchoerent (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:09:58 AM EST
    strategy? You don't say? Since when have we gotten a coherent strategy on anything? The unemployment problem?

    It's just another incoherent "strategy" in a list of incoherent strategies.

    He had no choice IMO (none / 0) (#27)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    to go in.  Had Gaddafi succeeded in a massacre Obama and American would not have heard the end of it.

    Once you go in for obvious humanitarian reason you can bet that the temptation to go further will be there. I pretty sure to go further than humanitarian was by designed.   To succeed you got  to continue the bombing of tanks and troops to get Gaddafi or make he run out of Libya

    The main reason Obama says we are not there for  regime change is because that is very unpopular to say after Iraq.  He does not want a Bush II copy on his decision in Libya.   But I bet you dollars to donuts that in the secret war room before the first strikes started in Libya  Obama has told his generals take out Gaddafi.  I don't care how you do it but remember I never told you to do it.  

    Remember Thomas Beckett when the King Henry said

    "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest"


    People get massacred all the time (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:27:02 AM EST
    Bahrain, Iovry Coast, Congo.

    Your statement is belied by the facts.

    Parent

    But when you can stop that (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    With no loss of life to your troops or innocents on the ground...shouldn't you do that?

    Parent
    You're talking about the Ivory Coast (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:34:41 AM EST
    I take it?

    Parent
    Certainly...and Libya as well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:37:56 AM EST
    We'll see how Libya turns out (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    How Libya turns out is on the heads (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    of those who empowered Gaddafi and gave him all that evil shit to squash and kill with.  That would not be me :)

    Parent
    No innocents on the ground (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    have now or will ever lose their lives from our military actions in Libya?

    No U.S. plane will crash during this action and cause U.S. troops to lose their lives?

    Seems like those are unrealistic expectations to me.

    Parent

    When, if ever, will we learn of the (none / 0) (#150)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    "Collateral damage" caused by the establishment of the no-fly zone?

    Parent
    You can't get them all (none / 0) (#49)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    but saving one or two massacres is worth it. It was a start. I wish we could prevent every one of these massacres. The fact that it must be all or none to have any respect for his decision is ridiculous.

    Maybe what we did in Libya will scare others countries  before they start a massacre of their own people.  If it does it's worth it.

    Parent

    We seem to get damn few (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:38:41 AM EST
    if that is the new Obama Dcotrine.

    Saddam and Gaddafi (if you get him.) Dozens more to go.

    Get to work!!

    Parent

    Gaddafi isn't my problem (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    He's a French problem since the Russians are just fine with him the way he is.

    Parent
    Hope Obama agrees (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    You forgot Egypt and Tunisa (none / 0) (#68)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    who did it on their own.  This is not just an Ameircan objective but where we or a coalition  can help a country reach that objective they should.

    It just started give it a chance and lets see what happens. Maybe we on to something here.

    Parent

    "Who did it on their own" (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    You do see the difference no?

    Parent
    Some can and some can't (none / 0) (#74)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    So let's invade those that can't (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    My personal preference is Cuba next.

    Parent
    I have suggested this many times way before Libya (none / 0) (#111)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    especially when we do so much business with China who are equal to Castro in abuse of human rights.  Even if you could not get rid of Castro then let's make Cuba economy grow just like China's did which we helped get to be the #2 economy in the world.  Get rid of the Cuban embargo for heavens sake and let the people of Cuba breath some fresh air.  

    Parent
    One of the rules--if we messed up a (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    previous attempt at regime change, don't try again.

    Parent
    they had very little (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    armed resistance.  thats a big difference.  

    Parent
    A big difference how? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    No offense, but the incoherence of the arguments being presented here is astonishing to me.

    Parent
    none taken (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    no real attempt at coherence.

    Parent
    As long as we are clear on that point (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    this is a (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:39:12 AM EST
    good point but I suspect some know they are "special" and can do pretty much whatever they want.

    unfortunately.

    Parent

    A lot of our military friends (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    Drinking beers over the weekend expressed the same sentiment too about making other dictators think twice at this point with the whole Middle East on fire at the moment.

    Parent
    Hubris, IMO (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    the armchair quarterbacking of a nation addicted to empire and militarism, and having lost almost entirely a national imagination or intellect.  Wouldn't you think Saddam and the Taliban were examples enough?  Hell, Saddam was no threat to us at all and we STILL torched his country. And we're NOW supposed to believe it's Gadaffi who will really be the example that sets dictators to peeing.  How many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people, so many of them innocent, have we killed in the service of our lofty B.S..

    Turn America into a truly great nation, in an inward American revolution, this is our only hope for truly changing the course of the world.  Lead by the example you set at home, by creating a nation so equitable and free and tolerant and beautiful that the rest of the world can't HELP but take notice and desire the same...THAT is the only long term solution.  And it seems beyond obvious, yet we are clueless.  Because it is a solution patently impossible to achieve as the leading interventionist military empire on earth.  

    Parent

    I'm with Dadler (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    Soldiers... I used to be one, and the only people that truly hate them are the ones who put them in danger for some lofty idealism.  Humanitarian aid does not in any way, shape, or form, mean giving someone a devise that is mean to kill another human being.

    As a sailor, I was perfectly content with letting nations figure out their own problems.  Like we have done numerous times.  I never felt it was my duty to put my life on the line to protect Liberians and Kuwaitis (circa 1990).  I swore an oath to protect THIS country, not every citizen of the planet.

    We should never put lives on the line for our interests, we put our lives on the line to protect Americans, not American ideals(which is extremely subjective), and certainly not to get cheap gas and profit Big Oil.

    Parent

    I don't believe for one minute you (1.50 / 2) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:19:25 AM EST
    were ever a soldier.  Not one single minute.

    Parent
    I remember a time when a commenter (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    stated he didn't believe for a moment that your husband was in the military. Not one single minute. IIRC he was soundly taken to task for his statement. Personally I don't find your comment anymore acceptable.

    Hate for the military is an easy out for discounting a person POV when it disagrees with yours. IMO it is the equivalent of discounting opposition to the Iraq occupation as unAmerican or just because someone hated Bush.  

    Parent

    Thanks MO Blue (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    Someone who advocates (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    the exposing of classified info and exposing our troops on the ground so they are easier to kill doesn't display much care of or consideration for other soldiers.  Someone so out of touch with military protocol and why that is followed is literally impossible to find in the military.  That particular trait among those who serve is extremely hard to find, if you can find it at all right now.  And I don't have a lot of sympathy or empathy for people who wish such ill will upon my own family.  Sorry if I can't join you in your opinions at this time.

    Parent
    Well What You Believe is Inconsequential (none / 0) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    Pretty sure Donald Trump doesn't think Obama is a US citizen.  But if you want proof, let me know, I'll gladly email my discharge papers, send a pic of the 10 medals I received, a scan a copy of the worthless VA home loan certificate, copies of the checks I got for the GI Bill, maybe the certificate of Registration with the Veterans department in Wisconsin, my boot camp yearbook pic, or one of the thousands of personal pictures of me serving on my ship honorably.

    I almost forgot, the ringer, me and a one of my mates on the front page of the Boston Globe or Herald lowering and folding the flag aboard my ship on the 4th of July in Boston, LHA2 Saipan.  '91 or '92.  Find that photo and you will find a young ScottW in his cracker jacks.

    But that's a hell of a dodge to the topic at hand.  So Fox-esque, going after the person and not the topic, how original.

    Tracy if I am not mistaken, you aren't actually military aren't you, just a dependent ?  Because if you were actually military, aren't you forbidden from discussing your political views in public, and lord knows, Tracy is a stickler for even the lamest military rules.

    Parent

    Please understand that what you believe (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:47:04 PM EST
    is even more inconsequential to me at this time on this subject.  I won't respond to anything from you ever again either and would prefer that you leave my comments alone too.  Thank You

    Parent
    Save It (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    You flash your quasi-military credentials, handle included, as if they give you some insight the rest of us don't have.  But the minute I disagree and flash my actual credentials, I am a liar, and I need not reply to your posts.

    That is exactly why I hated the military, it's all 'freedom', 'democracy', and 'America' when in actuality, it an authoritarian pissy contest where adults act like children.

    I will comment when I like unless the actual purveyors of the website ask me not to.
    _________

    And lastly, which is far more important, the question you refuse to answer, how is some blow hard on Fox News endangering our troops, or even a single person in the military ?

    It is after all the root of all you angst against me, the least you could do is offer an explanation to your outrage.  'Endangering out troops' is a bumper sticker, not a valid answer to a reasonable question.

    Parent

    You really hate soldiers man :) (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    Just people talking, but if they are soldiers talking such talk during their off hours when they can vote too....it's hubris.

    Parent
    These guys have buried so many people (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    They don't have much use for hubris these days.  Hubris only seems to come from chicken hawks.

    Parent
    And you should probably understand (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    they've buried Iraqis and Afghans too while they cried the same tears.  They get the "burying people thing" like none of the rest of us do.

    Parent
    Then I would expect (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    Less acceptance of violence as a solution, when it has proven so illusory in the past.  I don't hate soldiers, obviously, I hate what a state of perpetual war does to the minds of its citizens.  I hate how it atrophies the intellect of everyone, myself included.    

    And you know what, honestly, I don't subscribe to the blanket "they understand the burying people thing" like none of the rest of us do.  Do you really think ANYONE doubts seeing bodies blown to bits isn't awful?  There are plenty of Americans who have these things called imaginations.  They are the ones who warn us away from stupidity, and whom we ignore over and over.  So we go drench ourselves in blood and violence, in the obviousness of horror, and come back wanting credit for understanding things that MANY people understand without having to commit acts of violence.

    I am sick and tired of the military being given credit for things that those with sentient minds have known for eons. I am sick and tired of the deification of the military, the fetishizing of the military.  We have internalized this nonsense in the last thirty years and it is killing us.

    And I'll be honest, Tracy.  My brother is a veteran, has seen awful shit, I respect him greatly.  But, at sporting events say, when they have a graduating class from MCRD in attendance say (happened a lot in San Diego), and we're asked to stand and cheer for them...I don't.  I don't stand and applaud 18 year old kids who think they will be fighting for their nation, when we all know they will be fighting, almost entirely, for a SYSTEM of spoils.  I don't applaud adults sending kids into a situation that we KNOW is in no one's best interest except those who profit from war.  And to stand and applaud and pretend like we don't know, to me anyway, is sick.  I can appreciate how tough it is physically and mentally to get through boot camp, and that's enough, that's what I would applaud.

    Alright, end rant.  I'm cranky and tired, and apologize for any offense.  Peace to you, you're good peeps, hope you have a beautiful day.

    Parent

    I can't even talk to you about this (2.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    because you are so hateful toward the military and persons serving.  They are all violent evil disgusting gross human beings to you instead of simply human beings.  And you deny your own violent side, which I have seen you display before.  Somehow your justified violence is good though, and everyone elses is evil.

    Parent
    Diud they think about (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    how those dictators will want nukes now?

    Parent
    a great reason (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    to get them out before they can get them.

    Parent
    Oh Captain! My Captain! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    well (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    isnt it?

    Parent
    Uh no (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    Just how much money do you think the US has to spend on occupying foreign countries?

    Parent
    You are my Captain today! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    I think, feel, function the same way on such issues.

    Parent
    Feel (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    Not seeing the thinking.

    Parent
    Onward to Teheran! (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    You are becoming a neocon.

    Parent
    Come on...not fair (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    Not wanting people to be mass murdered and doing what can be done when we can makes us NeoCons?

    Parent
    seriously (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    there IS a difference between wanting to protect people and wanting to rule and occupy the country.


    Parent
    You said take out oppresive regimes (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:10:44 AM EST
    with nuclear aspirations. Not protect people.

    Oh BTW, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear aspirations and was "welcomed back to the community of nations."

    Do you even consider what you are writing? Are facts part of this discussion?

    I've had it with this thread.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    The Neocon argument for invading Iran is precisely the one Howdy provided.

    I am shocked thast you do not see that.

    Again, this comment thread is shockingly bad imo.

    Parent

    First you fear monger that helping (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    people will provoke nuclear proliferation.  Then when someone points out that a lack of dictators means that would be unlikely you act like we said Iran now needs to be invaded.

    The nuclear fear that Iran poses seems to be being handled by someone in a different way though.  Nobody knows who is handling it, all we know is that someone is.  Worms are destroying centrifuges and someone is assassinating scientists.

    Parent

    Fearmonger? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    North Korea does not have nukes? Iran is not trying to get them? Really?

    Whatever.

    Go on "feeling."

    I'll stick to the whole thinking thing.

    Parent

    I'm thinking and feeling (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    That is healthy.  That is what I'm supposed to do as a healthy functional human being :)  Not a very good argument there :)

    Parent
    Then get ready for REAL perpetual war (none / 0) (#108)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    And let's sign up, we're not too young to fight.  Hell, if folks like us are so gung-ho, then lets change the law so you can enlist and fight until you're 65.

    Also, with our utter cultural ignorance of every place we bomb and lay to waste, what track record are you going on to trust that whomever we usher in with our regime change won't ALSO seek nukes?

    Chaos and the unknown masses aren't really any more reliable or workable than single egomaniacs in exotic outfits.  

    Parent

    Why stop at 65? Isn't there a push to (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    make 70 the new retirement age?

    Parent
    Saul is mainly right. (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    Obama was in a tough bind on Libya, and had he not acted, and the slaughter by Gaddafi in Benghazi taken place, as the dictator promised, then the thousands of Libyan civilian dead would have been charged to Obama's account as these things get calculated in the court of public opinion by the MSM, the GOP and even many from O's own party.  

    It would have been his Rwanda, but even worse, as we know that many Americans have been following events in Libya as they are being fairly substantially covered in the US media, and Americans tend to have a strong opinion one way or the other about US intervention, while Rwanda in the 1990s was much more of a back burner news item that didn't engender sufficient public interest to force a move by Clinton.  

    I.e., BC had domestic political room to do nothing with no repercussions, a luxury Obama probably didn't have on Libya.

    As to Obama giving high priority to our military taking out Gaddafi, this doesn't seem to be the case given how few if any civilian casualties resulted from the initial rather precise and carefully circumscribed US bombing.  Or if this does have high priority, it's likely as a later-phase of the military operation, something that needs to be accomplished from close-in ground/intel operations, and not from massive aerial bombardment that might get lucky and take him out.  

    Parent

    Rwanda (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    hurt Clinton politically?

    I'm not one to enjoy discussing these type of issues on the "how does it effect the political leader" calculus, but that one does not even support your case.

    Parent

    The truth is that such situations can (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    harm Presidents politically no matter what decision they make.  You are damned if you do and damned if you don't....it is a time when an American President must pick his/her poison.  And sometimes outrageous fortune throws some events into the soup that can distract the angry and the accusing.  Obama likes the damned stage though so much, he's probably screwed in the department of seeking landscaping to hide behind for a moment :)

    Parent
    Didn't say that -- you (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    misread my post.  

    Again:  Clinton's non-intervention in Rwanda did not hurt him politically.

    Obama:  Libya much more of a concern, pro- or con intervention, with the US public.  Political repercusssions if Obama hadn't acted and the slaughter ensued; consequences positive or negative now depending on the outcome.

    I don't enjoy bringing this up either, but, as you say, pols are pols and we can be certain that they are taking domestic political attitudes into account in their FP decision making.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    No evidence of Americans concerned with Libya BEFORE Us got involved.

    Parent
    Libya was definitely (none / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    getting more media attention, pre-US intervention, that Rwanda had been getting at any stage.  Doubtful that during the pre-intervention period, the US public was not impacted by the rather positive reporting about the Libyan uprising against well known dictator Gaddafi.  

    Even if Americans didn't understand all the nuances, pretty quickly they'd understood it was freedom seeking civilians, badly armed, up against the well-armed evil dictator out to crush them.  And they knew Gaddafi from decades ago, back to the bombing of that Pan Am plane.

    And by comparison,  Americans knew squat about Rwanda.

    Parent

    They did not CARE (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    Every polls showed that. Even now, they really do not care.

    You are deluding yourself.

    Parent

    Wrong -- I think (none / 0) (#134)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    Americans do care -- but are split right down the middle.

    Of course, caring is relative and is measured on a continuum.  

    Care more than they did about Rwanda (my original point)?  Of course.

    Care more than they did about Vietnam?  Perhaps the VN of early 1965, but not thereafter, which morphed into a huge front-burner country-dividing name-calling socially divisive issue.

    Care more about Libya than they do about their own economic lives?  Of course not.

    No delusion here, as it turns out.

    Parent

    If someone asks them (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    they answer the question.

    Do not mistake being asked an opinion with caring.

    Parent

    Ask them how much are they willing (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    to sacrifice for military action in Libya. Are they willing to pay more in taxes, eliminate domestic services here in the U.S. and have their bridges collapse or their homes blow up because of lack of funds devoted to fixing our infrastructure?

    Because whether you want to accept it or not, our endless wars will result in the lower 98% sacrificing more and more. The only thing that will not happen is raising the taxes on corporations and the rich.  

    Parent

    BINGO (none / 0) (#125)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:15:17 AM EST
    I Just Thank God... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    ... The present day US military didn't exist around 1861 and decide to interfere in our own civil war.  I'm pretty sure Lincoln would have been labeled a tyrant and the south would have gotten plenty of support from the people running the show over at the Pentagon today.

    Sometimes countries need to figure these things out w/o the sanctimony and the obese military of a country that spends freely killing people all over the world while simultaneously tightening it's belt in regards to it's own citizens.

    And as far as the Obama Doctrine, what a joke, as pointed out several times above, the humanitarian aspect only applies to nations who have something we want.  Never mind that the US has never been successful in helping regime changes, if anything, this is era we will be talking about in 20 years when that region becomes another problem child, hostil to the overbearing US.

    And lastly, since when did certain oil producing African nations become the middle east ?  I was under the assumption that the Middle East fell on the Asian continent.  Now apparently, it's stretches multiple continents, before I know it Turkey is going to be in the Middle East, expanding it to three continents.

    What of the righteousness... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:47:25 AM EST
    or lack there of imo, of sending those who volunteered to defend the US to defend another nation and its people?  Or taking the tax dollars of broked*ck Americans to buy Tomahawks to fire on Libya?

    Personally, I think such "humanitarian" missions need to be done on a private volunteer basis and not involve the US military at all, if at all...like the Abraham Lincoln Brigades who volunteered to fight facism in Europe.  If the atrocity in Libya, Ivory Coast, Syria or anywhere else troubles you deeply, no one is stopping you from catching a flight to join the rebels in any nation...just don't send somebody elses kid who may not be willing to sacrifice for Libyan liberty, or pick you troubled nation.

    Call me an isolationist but our fighter jets should not be fueled until there is a direct and imminent threat to our borders and/or sovereignty.  

    Hear Hear (none / 0) (#158)
    by PatHat on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    We NEED to be isolationist for a while. To funnel  our toil and treasure back into our own country. If an earthquake/tsunami in Japan can cascade into auto plant shutdowns in the US...perhaps we should have a little LESS globalism?

    Parent
    Indeed... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    a little more self-sufficiency, a little less globalization, would do wonders in maintaining peace.  Or at least minimize foreign adventures in militarized market development and energy procurement.

    And not to sound isolationist and callous, because I know it doesn't really compare...but if I wanna fight for freedom and justice and human rights I need look no further than my own country, state, county, town to get started.  The USA has political prisoners who need liberation, a rigged oligarchal economy that needs dismantling, etc.

    Parent

    Trying to imagine armed (2nd (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    Amendment, baby) Tea Partiers being given air support by a foreign country.  

    Parent
    Good point... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    there are Americans under threat of tyranny...that fact does not give China, or Venezuela, or France the right to bomb anything here.

    In fact, such an action might be the only thing to get me to stand with Tim Geithner...there is a reason it is always a bad idea to get involved in domestic disputes...you'll often find the domestics in dispute will quickly reconcile to gang up on the interloper.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    That's foolish and would never work.

    Parent
    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#204)
    by star on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    With BTD. Thank you for articulating a lot of things I have been feeling from the beginning of the misadventure. Now all we can do is hope that the outcome is not disastrous either for Libya or for the US.
    I did not expect this president to take this course of action. I have been disappointed with his performance in a number of areas, but never in my wildest dream did I think there would be an Obama War...sigh...