Obama-Terminally Naive and Unjustifiably Arrogant

Normally (0.00 / 0)

I don't intentionally disagree with Rob.  But here I feel we might clash rather strongly.  

Obama started this action at the behest of the United Nations.  He didn't introduce the legislation, didn't propose it, indeed, opposed it publicly (to shrill opposition, right up until he changed his mind) until very recently.  

He was understandably hesitant.  I doubt he really wants to do this; hence, his failure to sell it to the American people.  

But the United Nations passed a resolution demanding the protection of Libyan civilians, and the United States is doing it.   That's what it means to be part of an international community.  Moreover, though it is being condemned now because it shows no immediate short term gains, in the long term it will embolden protesters and rebels throughout the region.  You can bet that Syria and Yemen are watching what is going on in Libya.  Both of them right now are taking a 'carrot and stick' approach as they wait to see what happens.  

If Libya gets away with simply shooting the opposition, why should Syria do any differently?  On the other hand, if Gaddafi's aggressive response ruins him, the Syrian and Yemeni governments will likely be more willing to compromise.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 00:22:36 AM UTC

It's a slippery slope (0.00 / 0)

The Great Leader is setting himself up for a lose/lose situation.

After letting the UN declare war for us this time, how does hoe decide now which civil wars to get involved in ?

And how does he get Gadaffi out of power without boots on the ground?

What are the consequences for our global stature if Gadaffi wins & stay in power ?

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 22:30:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are the consequences if Obama (0.00 / 0)

accomplishes regime change without miring the U.S. in a decades long war costing trillions of dollars and thousands of american lives?

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 22:51:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh Eric (0.00 / 0)

"After letting the UN declare war for us this time, how does hoe decide now which civil wars to get involved in ? "

He'll let the UN decide, like every other international law abiding nation on earth?  It's called an international community - you all get together, discuss, and decide what sorts of things are a good idea, and which aren't.  

And, if you're nervous, there's a built in safety valve - our Security Council Veto.  So, even if every other country in the world wants to get involved in a civil war, WE decide whether the UN will endorse it.  

But if you look back, the UN has a much better track record than the US alone.  Korea & Gulf War I, vs Vietnam and Gulf War II.

And our stated mission is not regime change, it is the protection of civilians, particularly in Benghazi.  While I share your skepticism about regime change using only air power, I am confident we can keep Gaddafi from taking Benghazi.  Also, regime change without boots on the ground has been done- think Milosevic.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 00:32:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fooled again! (0.00 / 0)

Wolf -  you got fooled again by lying politicians. Here's what you wrote: "And our stated mission is not regime change, it is the protection of civilians, particularly in Benghazi."

Here's today's news:
TRIPOLI, Libya - U.S. ships and submarines unleashed a barrage of cruise missiles at Libyan missile storage facilities in the Tripoli area late Monday and early Tuesday, an official said.

Later Tuesday, missiles targeted the tightly guarded residence of leader Moammar Gadhafi and military targets in the suburb of Tajura as NATO-led coalition aircraft were seen in the skies.

Pretty tough to argue that our "mission" is not regime change given the realities of what we're doing.  Or do you think we were protecting civilians from Gadhafi by bombing his compound?

---

by: ochenski @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:32:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

??? Curious (0.00 / 0)

Polish Wolf, I am curious as to what specific points we disagree on.  I do not believe that our involvement in Libya was a smart course of action, given the economic problems currently facing this country.  We are reinforced as the world's police-man, underpaid and impoverished but with really large guns everyone else wants us to use on their behalf.  That is a scary position to find our country in.  However, I agree with your analysis of the strategy from a foreign policy point of view.  And I certainly don't lay this egg at Obama's feet.  Please note how little I think of Dumar's analysis.  It's hardly better than one would find from Erick Erickson, or Peggy Martini Nooners even.

So, specifically what is the disagreement you are loath to have with me?  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 23:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well Rob (0.00 / 0)

I am loathe to debate the economic sanity of this position, because it depends so heavily on how long the operation takes.  And while I feel like I understand foreign policy pretty well, and economics alright, my knowledge of US military capability leans a bit heavily on wikipedia.  So, if this whole ordeal takes a few weeks, is limited to air and naval action, and end with a new popularly-chosen, oil-producing ally in the MENA, I'd say your cost benefit analysis works out in our favor.  

If that's not the case, and we're there for months and burn a lot of money on this thing, and in the end settle for a stalemate, then obviously it will have been a poor investment.  The biggest variable there is the relative military power of NATO, the rebels, and Gaddafi.  No one knows that equation exactly, so we're all just speculating.  That's also why I'm not fighting with lizard about this - I have put forth my predictions and concerns, and I'm ready to revisit them in a couple weeks when the situation is clearer.  Until then, the apparent success of the operation will merely depend on what media you read.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 00:54:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am more disappointed in Obama than any president since Johnson replaced Lincoln; (0.00 / 0)

but only a fool would hold him responsible for the purposeless congresses in power since 1973...

---

by: Horst @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:19:36 AM UTC

You were around (0.00 / 0)

When Johnson replaced Lincoln?  You are impressive, indeed.  (Disappointment is as much personal as it is intellectual.  Just saying.)  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 23:32:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you can find some grammatical or spelling errors too, wulfie? (0.00 / 0)

I was also disappointed when Lincoln chose to run with Johnson.  You may find that even more anachronistic--and/or not in keeping with your personal taste...

---

by: Horst @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 05:02:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ObamanationINC is a joke (0.00 / 0)

    Humanitarian intervention? like when the US would not allow 2 plane loads of Doctors from Cuba to land in Haiti to assist...
    This action is purely for self interest/our assets; it's selective - if Palestine had our under it's sands we'd be landing Divisions there... like they did in Haiti. Surprised we didn't land MORE troops in Japan last week?  
     ObamanationINC is a Neo-liberal Capitalist - they have zero sense of compassion - but they know where the assets are..
     Just like the poppy fields/oil fields same same.

        i would sanction the action taken if it had been through the proper channels - Congress. But i cannot abide this Seditious act.

---

by: Darwin26 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 04:13:04 AM UTC

This isn't a declaration of war (0.00 / 0)

So the proper channel is the commander in chief.  Moreover, if it is a craven a power grab as you describe, how would it be different if congress authorized it?  

And it's funny you bring up Palestine - yes, we might be interested if Palestine had oil.  But if the Palestinians were being oppressed by Sinhalese Buddhists or Turks, you wouldn't care about them.  Think about that before you pretend that's a relevant point again.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 05:12:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nonsense (0.00 / 0)

Darwin's comment is hyperbolic, to be sure - but for you to accuse people of only caring about the plight of Palestinians because it's Jews who are oppressing them says a little bit more about you than you intended.

People give a shit about the Palestinians because they're being oppressed with our tax dollars.  We give more military aid to Israel than we do any other country.  And if it were the case that they were being oppressed by Turks, and Turks were doing it with our money, then we would bear some responsibility for the outcome to.

Enough with the insinuations of anti-semitism for anyone who cares about the Palestinians.  It's disgusting and counterproductive.

---

by: SteveT. @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 17:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To write it off as insinuations--for anybody who cares about Jews--is to wear blinders. (0.00 / 0)

It is anti-semitism to refuse to recognise that the Israelis are there only as a result of western fiat--and are still there only because of U. S. Support...

---

by: Horst @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 20:49:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Steve T. (0.00 / 0)

It is anti-semitism to refuse to recognise that the Israelis are there only as a result of western fiat

A.  No one said anything like that.

B.  Even if they did, it still wouldn't qualify as anti-semitism.

C.  But seriously, no one said that.

---

by: SteveT. @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 21:38:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Horst... (0.00 / 0)

Israel does not exist by Western fiat.  It exists by UN resolution and by the success of the Zionist movement.  And they are still there because there is no alternative.  Can you fault US support when Arab leaders were literally promising a genocide?  Some of that was probably a lack of understanding Arab rhetorical traditions, but nonetheless the statements that were made were not calculated to encourage peace.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 00:17:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He said, she said. (0.00 / 0)

You say tomato, I say tomahto.  
In 1948, the U.N. was the clearest expression of western fiat, steverino.   And, since Eisenhower's election, the U. S. A. has kept Israel in business by largesse with taxpayer dollars.
Sympathy for Palestinians has become the most socially acceptable form of anti-semitism during just about the same period of time--despite Anwar Sadat's having pointed out that he was a Semite.  As a matter of fact, I think it is tres chic in most of the west--particularly in non-communist Europe--to portray the Palestinians as though they had been victims of the holocaust...

---

by: Horst @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 21:04:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Admittedly (0.00 / 0)

There is an element of 'don't spend my money to oppress people' in the opposition to Israel.  I'll give you that.  

And I'm not going to claim that any country besides Israel gets military aid quite to the level that Israel does.  

But I'll remind of the billions of dollars in aid that we've given to Turkey, as well as implicit promises of protection from anyone who may wish to harm them.  And most European nations don't give their tax money to Israel, and yet pro-Palestinian sentiment is at least as strong in Europe as it is here.  So, while the tax dollars argument may be some part of it, it certainly doesn't tell the whole story.  

I'm not trying to say that antisemitism is the reason people care about the Palestinians.  There's a few reasons.  One is indeed the fact that this is a matter that affects Jews on many levels, and Jewish people are well represented in American intellectual life - thus, it's a well-known conflict, unlike Sri Lanka or Kurdistan.  

Another is Yasser Arafat et al, who have been very successful in getting people to notice their plight.  I don't begrudge them their success, but I do think its funny when people who are convinced they are so far beyond the mainstream media still seem convinced that Palestine is the biggest international conflict in the world.  

Probably a third is Israel's wealth.  To a Westerner, Sinhalese and Tamils all look pretty close to dirt poor - we aren't any good at distinguishing a true oppressor there because no one seems to be 'winning'.  On the other hand, Israelis are relatively wealthy, Palestinians, not so much.  So the oppressor/oppressed archetype that we look for is better fulfilled.  

I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of antisemitism (though I understand where it looked like it).  I was merely pointing out that Israel-Palestine is not as exceptional as it appears from the media.  

---

by: The Polish Wolf @ Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 00:14:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]