Yes, yes, I know, this is only a parody. Still, it seems, somehow, to resonate.

Obviously, I enjoy it.

However, this is not so enjoyable:

The most obvious difference between Libya and Iraq, needless to say, is who’s doing the dictator-toppling on the ground. At the moment, if this devastating report from McClatchy is accurate, it sounds like … no one is.

Rebel fighters who once vowed to seize Tripoli from Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi instead have retreated from their forward positions to defend their homes, saying their rebel council isn’t leading them, they don’t trust their military commanders and their army is divided.

Days of interviews throughout Libya’s rebel-dominated eastern half provide a grim picture of the group whose side the U.S. and its coalition partners have taken in a fight whose goal, if unstated, is to drive Gadhafi from power after 42 years. The rebels hardly seem ready to take the lead…

“We don’t have an army,” said Lt. Saleh Ibrahim, a former restaurateur who is now supposed to be a rebel commander. “We have been betrayed by infiltrators on the frontline. And when Benghazi came under attack, our government fled to Egypt. We are not safe here. For me, at least I will defend my family.”…

At the 7th of April Army base here, a major rebel army headquarters, Ibrahim, 57, says any appearance of organization is illusory. He said he’s too embarrassed to invite reporters inside because, he said, he doesn’t want the world to see “all the rubbish we have.”…

“All the tanks here are for show only. We don’t have ammunition. We don’t have weapons. We don’t have anything,” he said, the exasperation evidence in his voice.

So, now what?

There's a serious point here among all the needless partisanship.

Realistically there are very significant differences between Iraq and Libya. What was hapening in Libya was a potential humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes that could (in theory at least) be prevented by prompt action. There was no similar time pressure to take out Saddam. As such it's a bit silly to try and score points against people who support one intervention and not another.

But yeah, the 'now what?' question is certainly valid. I had strong reservations about getting involved in Libya for precisely that reason. I'm not convinced that lobbing a few bombs is going to be enough to topple Gaddafi and I'm concerned about what we're supposed to do once it becomes obvious that it's failed.

Sassenach wrote:There's a serious point here among all the needless partisanship.

Needless? That's rich, considering the current President has been endlessly partisan.

And, Obama's been hit left and right and center over Libya. Maybe it's because he has yet to articulate a coherent reason for why we're there--or because he's articulated about four reasons, none of which are very compelling?

Did you watch the video?

Realistically there are very significant differences between Iraq and Libya.

Agreed. Bush had more support domestically and internationally, took more time, tried to deal with Saddam in multiple ways, and we actually had a reason to go to war with him (violating the ceasefire from the First Gulf War).

What was hapening in Libya was a potential humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes that could (in theory at least) be prevented by prompt action.

There have been others. Where was Obama on intervening in Darfur?

What are we going to do in Libya? If Gaddafi hunkers down and rides out the storm, it does not appear the rebels can defeat him. So, a divided country? Ongoing civil war? How long do we maintain the no-fly zone? When/if we leave, will Gaddafi go back to 'plan A' (slaughtering the opposition)? If so, what did we achieve?

Here's the problem: our President hasn't answered any of those questions.

There was no similar time pressure to take out Saddam. As such it's a bit silly to try and score points against people who support one intervention and not another.

Not at all. If you'll recall, we didn't rush into Iraq. Our negotiations and endless wrangling at the UN took quite some time. We put troops into position and had them sit there.

But yeah, the 'now what?' question is certainly valid. I had strong reservations about getting involved in Libya for precisely that reason. I'm not convinced that lobbing a few bombs is going to be enough to topple Gaddafi and I'm concerned about what we're supposed to do once it becomes obvious that it's failed.

And, isn't that the issue? Wasn't Bush criticized for not having "an exit strategy?" Obama doesn't even have "an entrance strategy." No one can tell me what the purpose is. Obama has said Gaddafi must go, but . . . he steadfastly says we're not sending in troops. Who's going to take him out--a mean little kid with a pea shooter?

It's not my job to defend Obama, especially since I'm not at all convinced that the Libya intervention is wise. I'm simply saying that there's a difference between intervening to prevent a current atrocity from taking place and invading a country where there was no pressing need to get involved at any time in the foreseeable future. And I speak as somebody who was a supporter of the Iraq invasion. They're not comparable situations and shouldn't be treated as such.

In addition to the difference that Sas mentions about the proximate cause of a massacre by Qhadafi, I think there are two other important differences between Libya and Iraq. The first is that we have not landed ground forces in Libya and it is unlikely that we will. After the US overthrew Hussein, we effectively were in charge of Iraq and became responsible because of the number of troops and others on the ground. That's not the case in Libya.

The second difference is that Iraq was a strategic blunder. By liberating Iraq we freed Iran from its tough western border. We have created a more powerful Iran and we've paid the price for that over the last several years. It wasn't pretty, but the reality is that Iraq and Iran balanced each other out. I don't see a comparison with Libya in that regard.

I do agree with Steve that Obama has not adequately clarified this issue to the American people and the Congress. I also agree with Steve that we have to be careful of mission creep. (Has anyone seen studies of wars and mission creep? When does it happen? Is it always bad?) I'm hopeful that Obama will clarify next week.

But overall, I find the inconsistency of some Republicans on this issue to be more distressing. I'm all for reasoned criticisms, but it seems that some are more interested in scoring political points than anything else.

Ray Jay wrote:IThe first is that we have not landed ground forces in Libya and it is unlikely that we will.

Remember those UK boots that got sent home. The US most definitely has special forces on the ground.

The Somalia Black Hawk Down scenario might be possible. How many US soldiers do they need to drag dead through the streets to make Obama turn and run? Even an atheist can appreciate the old adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or that no good deed goes unpunished.

In the worst case scenario they have a smashing success with this operation, and thereby pave the way to a worse intervention. I know...I know...I'm impossible to please.

I also have to ask why if the intervention is justified because Gadafi is a psychopath, then why is it ok to kill his soldiers following his orders while simultaneously insisting that you aren't/won't take out the psychopath.

Sassenach wrote:...intervening to prevent a current atrocity from taking place...

Right. Atrocities. Human suffering. Sure. France and Italy always rush to send planes and ships whenever there's one of those.

Funny how all these nations only became so concerned about the human atrocities once Ghaddafi had lobbed a few shells at an oil facility and someone had cut one of the pipelines. I'll tell you what I think may be happening. I'm not going to bet the farm on this but it's not implausible and it seems to fit the facts: once that purely internal war turned more than just moderately bloody and the large weapons came out, and oil facilities got damaged and crazy Ghaddafi threatened to blow more such up, the EU sprang into action. Libya provides a full 10% of their oil. They begged the USA to establish a no-fly-zone so Ghaddafi couldn't bomb or shell the oil infrastructure. Pretending that it's so he can't bomb or shell people is just cover. Sure, it's nice. There will be some protection of populations, especially when cameras are figuratively rolling, but that's not the primary reason for the intervention.

What we're seeing and calling Obama's dithering and lack of leadership is this: he doesn't particularly want to do the EU's dirty work here and who can blame him? He grudgingly agreed to kick things off with the Tomahawks we had in theater already, but wants to turn things over to the Euros ASAP because he sees that we don't really have a dog in this fight. We don't want to see the oil cut, but neither do we want to be involved in a shoot-em-up in yet another Muslim country. This is a delicate matter. He's essentially being bullied by the Euros, I suspect. They're probably saying to him something like, "For once we're telling you to lead - we really want you to." Maybe they're promising some support for us in Afghanistan. There's got to be negotiations going on, and my theory is that the mixed signals we're hearing and the appearance of confusion arise from the fact that these negotiations are ongoing and contentious. No doubt Obama and Clinton aren't as adept at this sort of thing as, maybe, Nixon and Kissinger. But I suspect they are taking the right tack. The USA can no longer afford to be the unpaid mercenaries of the EU.

Exit strategy? I predict that the outsiders will cease their strong military involvement once the oil flow is no longer in imminent danger.

I could be wrong. It's possible we'll never know. If you can find a logical flaw in my guesswork I'd like to hear and consider it.

Minister X wrote:I could be wrong. It's possible we'll never know. If you can find a logical flaw in my guesswork I'd like to hear and consider it.

Are you saying we're just mercantile bastards, who couldn't care a @#$! about anything but oil ??? That's you guys, we're morally uncorrupt, especially our left (who's by the way really really left, they would make Steve's head explode in about 30 seconds).

In the media there wasn't much talk about Lybian oil, but then they aren't necessarily any better than yours and the story in general more about the powerplant malfunction in Japan (if you watch the media you'd never think the country was devasted by a quake and tsunami it's all about the Fukochima). I suppose the quick military action especially by some of the Europeans supports your theory (that is besides the fact that i think most politicans are corrupt bastards).

X

What we're seeing and calling Obama's dithering and lack of leadership is this: he doesn't particularly want to do the EU's dirty work here and who can blame him?

If no one acts and Ghaddaffi's forces had marched into Ben Ghazi and mudered thousands who would carry the can?
If the US deosn't throw in with a Western alliance and the establishment of the no fly becomes difficult and/or costly or not fully achieved, what does that do to the Western alliance.?
If they do throw troops on the ground is there domestic support for such an act. Iraq and Afghanistan are very unpopular right now and the invasion of Iraq is particularly seen as a mistake by most Americans...
What you see as "dithering" is more accurate described as caution. (And by the way seems to be approved of in the US based on the recent Pew poll) .
In the end, judging how Obama and Clinton do on this is difficult right now. But they are being careful. With the luxury of a completely dominant military and the experience of failed occupations to consider ....Careful is sensible.
And they haven't made any mistakes that will create years of uncertainty or destroy a careful regional power/political balance that the US would be powerless to change.
To what do I refer? Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iran had a major enemy in Iraq. They were actually working with Shiite dissident to destabilize Saddam and over come his dictatorship. They could have only wished for a power ally and one came along to achieve their goal. Today Iraq is Iran's closest, perhaps only true ally. As the expensive US military presence recedes in Iraq this will become increasingly apparent within the region. Why do you think there is no US reaction to Bahrain? Its because the dissident there are Shiite and look to Iran as their natural ally....
And by the way Steve, that's the major reason Iraq is different then Libya. Even interceding with boots on the ground wouldn't change anything in the regional political balance in the Middle East the way that the invasion and occupation fell into Iran's hands. By maintaining a no fly zone over a Saddam regime the US had major influence within the region as a protector of nations threatened by Saddam AND they had a presence that deterred Iran. BY throwing in occupation forces , they destroyed that balance and allowed the base tribalism to become a dominant force in the region.
Even at its worst - Libya won't be that big of a screw up. And at its best, it could help rehabilitate the US image in the region as a guarantor of people's rights. (Excepting the unfortunate Bahrainis.) And maybe, probably I suspect, lead to a modern democracy the way Tunisia and perhaps Egypt seem headed.
(remember how irate his critics were over the supposed lack of leadership or involvement in Egypt. Working out pretty well there...) Some times the best course of action is patience.

Oh, and Nixon and Kissinger?
I seem to remember that the VietNam conflict lasted years after Nixon came to power and was expanded into Cambodia (the socalled secret bombing) Which lead to the emergence of the Khmer Rouge, and the greatest genocide since the Holocaust.
A genocide only ended by the VietNames intervention after they had gained full control of their nation. Big fail.
Credit given to Nixon and Kissinger should be very limited. Familiarity with the havoc they wreaked in Latin and South America , and especially long term damage to the repuration and political intersts of the US, is another reason to avoid using them as models for the effective use of power in regional affairs.

popular in a poll?
Iraq was very popular in the early polls as well.

Why is it the US must join in a western alliance in Libya but France, Germany, etc were no big deal not taking part in Iraq?

The similarities are astounding yet ignored.

tom

popular in a poll?
Iraq was very popular in the early polls as well.

Yes. So?

Why is it the US must join in a western alliance in Libya but France, Germany, etc were no big deal not taking part in Iraq?
The similarities are astounding yet ignored.

In Iraq, a no-fly zone existed. It was fully functioning and except for instance where Iraqis air defence systems locked on to US planes, was being respected by Iraq. The Khurds were safe under the umbrella . And France was helping enforce the no-fly. Germany was part of the embargo.
The subtle difference is that Bush ignored his partners concerns and packaged a pack of "faulty if not deliberately dishonest intelligence" in order to convince cajole and push acceptance and participation. germany, was after all, where Curve ball was held and they knew he was a crack pot. (An example of bribery? Pulaua got a huge aid package for their signature)
With Libya, the partners are making the request.
Bush was trying to tell the story that he was responding to a real threat which wsa at best "apprehended' and at worst manufactured.
Ghaddaffi's forces were outside Ben Ghazzi and Ghaddaffi had told them to expect a massacre.The threat was immediate and very real.
The intervention in Iraq was going to entail "boots on the ground" a long occupation, and regional politcal consequences.
So far, in libya, its a no fly zone which was where Bush was Before the campaign to form a coaltion of the willing...

the differences are enormous. The similiaries thin.

rickyp wrote:X

What we're seeing and calling Obama's dithering and lack of leadership is this: he doesn't particularly want to do the EU's dirty work here and who can blame him?

If no one acts and Ghaddaffi's forces had marched into Ben Ghazi . . .

A little humor, eh?

Was that a TV drama featuring this guy?

If the US deosn't throw in with a Western alliance and the establishment of the no fly becomes difficult and/or costly or not fully achieved, what does that do to the Western alliance.?

Thank you for turning the situation upside down. Was England or France or even Italy bombing before we showed up? Were they leading the charge at the UN? Were they begging us to help them?

And, what should we make of uprisings in Syria and all across the Middle East? Why aren't we establishing no-fly zones?

Has there been a bigger example of a government abusing its citizens for the past x years than North Korea? In a country where a rat represents a potential feast, what have we done (acknowledging this has spanned many presidencies)?

What you see as "dithering" is more accurate described as caution. (And by the way seems to be approved of in the US based on the recent Pew poll) .

Absolutely wrong. Look at Gallup:

The 47% of Americans approving of the action against Libya is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other U.S. military campaigns in the past four decades.

So, no, it's not wildly popular. It might get a bump when the President finally addresses the country on Monday. However, this is likely going to grow less popular over time, particularly when our purpose is so ill-defined.

Again, suppose Gaddafi survives this. How will this possibly be a "success?" He will be delayed in murdering tens of thousands. I'm sure the extra few months of life will be a great comfort.

Obama has said Gaddafi must go. He has also said we won't send in troops to make that happen. It seems likely we won't see the former without the latter.

It is dithering because an immediate reaction (within a few days) might have made a huge difference. Instead, the President sort of made a decision at the last possible moment.

In the end, judging how Obama and Clinton do on this is difficult right now. But they are being careful. With the luxury of a completely dominant military and the experience of failed occupations to consider ....Careful is sensible.

. . . or indecision . . . or an inability to lead. Given that neither of us was in the Oval Office during these weeks, I'm not sure how your guess can possibly be more informed than mine.

As for "failed occupations," if that's what you want to call them, fine. Who has continued both for more than 2 years? Is that "careful" as well? Is it "careful" to increase troop levels in Afghanistan?

And they haven't made any mistakes that will create years of uncertainty or destroy a careful regional power/political balance that the US would be powerless to change.

How do you know this? Seriously. How? You have no idea what the ramifications of our actions are--how they are perceived in the Arab/Islamic world. You have no idea how this will play out. To pretend to know or to pretend that there will be no unintended consequences, is exactly the sort of arrogance you accuse Bush/Cheney of possessing.

Even at its worst - Libya won't be that big of a screw up. And at its best, it could help rehabilitate the US image in the region as a guarantor of people's rights. (Excepting the unfortunate Bahrainis.) And maybe, probably I suspect, lead to a modern democracy the way Tunisia and perhaps Egypt seem headed.

So you completely discount reports that AQ is taking up arms in Libya? You completely discount reports that the Muslim Brotherhood is gathering steam in Egypt? Okay.

All I am saying is that we don't know--indeed cannot know--what impact our actions, and the perceptions of Obama's leadership, will have.

Doctor Fate wrote:
All I am saying is that we don't know--indeed cannot know--what impact our actions, and the perceptions of Obama's leadership, will have.

Steve, you are right that we cannot know. The real world is complicated and unpredictable. At issue is whether we are taking wise and prudent risks.

It seems that you are assuming the absolute worst, partially based on your assessment of the situation and partially based on your incredibly low assessment of Obama. It would be helpful to tease those two apart because the former may be unduly influenced by the latter (for all of us).

Ray Jay wrote:Steve, you are right that we cannot know. The real world is complicated and unpredictable. At issue is whether we are taking wise and prudent risks.

It seems that you are assuming the absolute worst, partially based on your assessment of the situation and partially based on your incredibly low assessment of Obama. It would be helpful to tease those two apart because the former may be unduly influenced by the latter (for all of us).

I had been thinking along these lines, so excellent point.

I don't doubt the intent of those who simply say they want to save lives. That's honorable. However, is it probable we will save lives simply with a temporary no-fly zone, particularly one run by NATO (with Turkey riding shotgun) and an unwieldy coalition including some Arab countries who are increasingly skittish?

I think we may be merely delaying the inevitable.

As for the President, I think it is fairly unique in modern American history for a President to commit US troops without a formal announcement to the American people--either before taking the action or concurrent with the committing of troops. In that sense alone, this seems a remarkably tepid effort by the Administration. He gave 15 minutes to ESPN to explain his March Madness picks, but can't spare the time to explain Libya until Monday?

And, if this is not about the oil, will we take up arms to defend Syrian civilians?

CAIRO — Military troops opened fire during protests in the southern part of Syria on Friday and killed peaceful demonstrators, according to witnesses and news reports, hurtling the strategically important nation along the same trajectory that has altered the landscape of power across the Arab world.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators in the southern city of Dara’a and in other cities and towns around the nation took to the streets in protest, defying a state that has once again demonstrated its willingness to use lethal force.

It was the most serious challenge to 40 years of repressive rule by the Assad family since 1982, when the president at the time, Hafez al-Assad, massacred at least 10,000 protesters in Hama, a city in northern Syria.

Human rights groups said that since protests began seven days ago in the south, 38 people had been killed by government forces — and it appeared that many more were killed on Friday. Precise details were hard to obtain because the government sealed off the area to reporters and would not let foreign news media into the country.

“Syria’s security forces are showing the same cruel disregard for protesters’ lives as their counterparts in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

What is the goal?

We don't know--the President has set forth several.

Will we accept Gaddafi staying in power?

Apparently--his spokesman, Jay Carney, has said this is a possibility.

Getting involved in Libya MIGHT be the right thing to do. However, there is a huge vacuum of information here.

Am I assuming the worst?

No. I'm not sure what the worst would be. However, I'm not sure what the best would be either--because I don't think the President knows either. If he does, he sure is keeping it quiet.

I have heard the French are saying this no-fly zone effort won't last long. So . . . what is the plan? Are the French going to invade? The Italians?

Some have compared this with Serbia. However, Bill Clinton, to his credit, never said we would not put troops in. I'm sure that played some part in Milosevic's decision to quit. Obama has flatly stated we won't send troops in and we won't target Gaddafi. So, Gaddafi has a "choice" (as Hillary loves to put it): he can flee and probably rot in a jail somewhere or he can fight on, bribing troops and perhaps neighbors in the hopes of outlasting us.

If I was him--a murdering psychopathic, megalomaniac--I know which one I would choose.

I really hope the President has some ace up his sleeve he hasn't shown, but does that seem likely?

I'll be listening for a plan Monday night. I'm not optimistic. There is no reason for me to be.