The Three Stooges Go To War

[nigel_k]

I wouldn't trust Bush to wipe his own ass, let alone manage a major war...

 

I have a lot more faith in Obama

The military action is much more constrained

Obama has categorically rejected ground troops

Back when Bush was in charge, Obama said the following:

 

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

 

So, like other politicians, he says what is politically convenient and then does as he pleases. Why should we believe him when he now says there won't be ground troops?

[Winstonm]

What is it they say about absolute power?

 

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Senator Obama

 

"***** it. Let's bomb his Libyan ass." - President Obama

[Winstonm]

I wouldn't trust Bush to wipe his own ass, let alone manage a major war...

 

I have a lot more faith in Obama

The military action is much more constrained

Obama has categorically rejected ground troops

 

And hey, cruise missiles might not be the most effective form of stimulus spending, but something is better than nothing

 

 

I had hoped a less partisan view from you, Richard.

 

I doubt anyone holds Bush/Cheney in more contempt than I do, but at the same time to whitewash Obama's upholding of the Bush/Cheney legacy simply because he is a Democrat is not much of a response.

 

Isn't it time to hold all in power accountable, regardless of party?

[kenberg]

The headline in the Washington Post today is

"Allied airstrikes fail to halt Gaddafi’s attacks"

Yeah. Duh.

What we do now, Kemo Sabe?

[helene_t]

Talking about double standards. Everybody was up in arms about Iraq. Everybody is "torn" about Libya.

The argument for the Iraq war was some "evidence" for MDW which Blair and Bush probably knew was fabricated.

 

Unlike Sadam, Gadaffi actually has large supplies of mustard gas, although he may not have the aims to deploy it. Anyway, the argument for the Libya war was an ongoing genocide.

 

Fair enough if that difference seems irrelevant to you. You may nevertheless acknowledge that it is relevant to some.

[andrei]

The argument for the Iraq war was some "evidence" for MDW which Blair and Bush probably knew was fabricated.

 

Unlike Sadam, Gadaffi actually has large supplies of mustard gas, although he may not have the aims to deploy it. Anyway, the argument for the Libya war was an ongoing genocide.

 

Fair enough if that difference seems irrelevant to you. You may nevertheless acknowledge that it is relevant to some.

 

Really, was Sadam as innocent as you are trying to portrait him? There is an ongoing genocide in Libya, but there was no genocide whatsoever in Iraq under Sadam? Give me a break.

 

I am not naive, it was about oil in Iraq. They have 15% of the total oil reserves and other 40% in their close proximity, so stability is needed in the region. If they succeded or not only the history will tell, but with the recent turmoil in Arab world the situation looks pretty good. And you get down a dictator like Sadam in the process too. Libya, oil again. There is a genocide going on for a few years now in Darfour (just to give an example) and there are no troops or planes deployed there. US can't go and make peace everywhere, they choose to go wherever their interests dictates.

I know it is not fair, it is cynical and people don't like it and I don't like it.

 

But, this still does not explain the Republicans-Democrats double standard.

[helene_t]

but there was no genocide whatsoever in Iraq under Sadam? Give me a break.

Did you actually read what I posted? I was referring to the arguments given for the interventions.

 

Here in Europe, lots of left-wingers hate Blair because of the Iraq war. And Blair is in the Labour Party. Now we have a conservative government (as do the French). One could amuse oneself by pointing out that mainstream media are more favorable towards a war fought by a conservative government than one fought by a socialist one. Personally I don't think it matters that much.

[andrei]

Did you actually read what I posted? I was referring to the arguments given for the interventions.

 

Here in Europe, lots of left-wingers hate Blair because of the Iraq war. And Blair is in the Labour Party. Now we have a conservative government (as do the French). One could amuse oneself by pointing out that mainstream media are more favorable towards a war fought by a conservative government than one fought by a socialist one. Personally I don't think it matters that much.

 

As you say:

 

France did not participate in Iraq, but all left-wingers (mainstream media included) were opposing it vehemently.

France (with a conservative goverment no less) goes to Libya and the "anti-war" left-wingers are favorable.

 

Does this make sense? No, it doesn't.

Except that it does. Iraq was started by Bush/Republicans and Libya by Obama/Democrats.

[luke warm]

Anyway, the argument for the Libya war was an ongoing genocide.

 

you might be right there helene, but i don't recall that argument being made over here... if it had, and the genocide was ongoing, it seems that it should have been made before now... besides, the u.s. has had many opportunities to oppose genocide with armed conflict and hasn't done so... our gov't is and has been hypocritical for some time

 

even so, there is a decided media slant in this country (can't speak for other countries) when it comes to who does what, when

[kenberg]

If we, perhaps with fingers crossed, accept that humanitarian motives are at least part of the driving force in our intervention in Libya then I think Somalia might be a more useful comparison than Iraq. No doubt we did some good in Somalia but it was temporary. When American soldiers began dying the reaction, at least as I recall it, was "What? American boys getting killed and dragged through the streets trying to help someone? The hell with that, where's the exit?".

 

I do hope that we know what we are doing. "Mission accomplished" became the infamous mis-assessment during the Bush II years, but "Home by Christmas" comes from post D-Day optimism, "The Yanks are coming" from WWI, and so on. MacArthur was more than a little optimistic about the ability to deal with the Chinese coming into the war in Korea. The Bay of Pigs did not go as planned, and I think Johnson had absolutely no clue about the magnitude of what he was stepping into. It's so easy to underestimate what will be required that it seems to happen more often than not. We can all hope this will be different, and maybe it will.

 

I am fine with helping the Libyan people. I just think that these things often turn out to be a lot more difficult than expected.

[ggwhiz]

 

Does this make sense? No, it doesn't.

Except that it does. Iraq was started by Bush/Republicans and Libya by Obama/Democrats.

 

This was not started by the U.S. in any way. They simply have the wherewithall and willingness to get it underway quickly after getting the go ahead from the U.N. which was driven by lobbying from England and France.

 

Wouldn't be happening without (reluctant and maybe temporary)support from the Arab League.

 

Wringing your hands about U.S. involvement in yet another war is misplaced and misguided.

[helene_t]

you might be right there helene, but i don't recall that argument being made over here... if it had, and the genocide was ongoing, it seems that it should have been made before now

Well that's the whole point of the UN resolution. It was made after massacres had taken place in Zawiya and it was the thread on Bengazi that pushed it through. The mandate is solely to protect civilians. The American and British political and military leaders are very clear that they are constrained by the mandate. The French seem more aggressive, though.

 

I concede that this could easily just be something they say in public in order to get the Chinese and Russians to abstain from vetoing, and maybe behind closed doors they work on ways to get more directly involved in ousting Gadaffi while not upsetting the Chinese and Russians too much. But even so, comparing this to Iraq is just absurd. As Kenberg notes, a comparison to Somalia (which was a lot more popular among politically correct opinion makers) is more apt. A comparison to Bosnia, Kosova (I refuse to spell it "Kosovo") and East Timor may be apt, too.

 

And as for the significance of the fact that US happens to have a democrat president at the moment: Until a week ago Obama was very reluctant to getting involved. He may have been the last person on this Earth to make his mind up. Not blaming him for that, just saying that he can't have influenced many, certainly not outside the US, and certainly not influencing people to be in favor of the war, as he was reluctant while his allies were more pushy.

[kenberg]

With regard to left wing and right wing and all that jazz, I suppose Republicans find it easier to support Bush and Democrats find it easier to support Obama, but for me and I think for most people party affiliation is not determining.

Browsing around for internet news, I found the following from NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/134814081/Libyan-Rebels-Update?ps=cprs

This looks to me like a serious attempt to describe a complicated situation as best one can. All this stuff about liberal bias seems to me to be just that. a lot of stuff. I regularly listen to Diane Rehm. I am sure she has liberal leanings but so what? She gets good people on her show to discuss important issues and actually lets them talk in paragraphs without interrupting or yelling. Even when she had David Axlerod on she let him talk. He sounded like a moron, but she let him talk.

 

Anyway, I suppose this is a bit off-topic, but I think filtering everything through left/right is a mistake.

[Fluffy]

Did you actually read what I posted? I was referring to the arguments given for the interventions.

 

Here in Europe, lots of left-wingers hate Blair because of the Iraq war. And Blair is in the Labour Party. Now we have a conservative government (as do the French). One could amuse oneself by pointing out that mainstream media are more favorable towards a war fought by a conservative government than one fought by a socialist one. Personally I don't think it matters that much.

In Spain the goverment that won the elections thanks to the terrorists bombing the day prior to elections in 2004 and that inmediatelly retired the troops from Iraq since "no to war" was their slogan are the ones who are sending troops to Libya now.

 

But they are suposed to be left wing, not conservative (they took power over the conservatives on 2004). Well they are the ones who are giving all money to banks and the rich and starving the people, so one wonders why they call themselves socialist.

 

Anyway, I am happy that for once, Spain is sending troops to a country to fight for our own interests. Fuel has raised enormously here due to the Libyan civil war, so to stop it will serve for a purpose for us I hope.

[Fluffy]

Also, ain't nobody surprised that every day about 10x people on Ivory coast are dying compared to Libya and nobody is saying anything about intervention there?

[helene_t]

so will that be their election slogan next time? Vote for the socialists, vote for more fuel-price lowering wars?

[luke warm]

And as for the significance of the fact that US happens to have a democrat president at the moment: Until a week ago Obama was very reluctant to getting involved. He may have been the last person on this Earth to make his mind up. Not blaming him for that, just saying that he can't have influenced many, certainly not outside the US, and certainly not influencing people to be in favor of the war, as he was reluctant while his allies were more pushy.

you made some excellent points, especially this last one... anger over our involvement shouldn't be directed toward obama who, as you pointed out, didn't seem real sure about what he wanted to do

[helene_t]

Also, ain't nobody surprised that every day about 10x people on Ivory coast are dying compared to Libya and nobody is saying anything about intervention there?

Well, Libya is closer to Europe. This means that Europe-based war jets can reach them. It also means that Libya is more relevant to Europe (boat refugees in Malta and Italy). Of course, the oil makes it more relevant, too. Personally, I am more concerned about the impact on the cocoa prices from the civil war in the Ivory Coast. I don't drive but eat lots of chocolate. But that's just me.

 

Also, in Libya it is pretty much the people against the dictator. If Gadaffi falls, one might hope that the situation will become reasonably stable, at least to the point that international peacekeepers won't be required for decades. Of course, this may be too optimistic. I don't think anyone can predict how much violence there will be in a post-Gadaffi Libya, how much the tribal division means. But in the Ivory coast, the conflict is between the muslim North and the Christian South, and that division will remain.

 

In Libya it makes some sense to target Gadaffi's heavy weapons. Not sure what could be targeted in the Ivory Coast.

 

In the Ivory Coast, the internationally recognized president is from the Muslim North. It might be prudent for an international force to recognize him as the leader of the whole country, but on the other hand, to achieve peace, at least in the short run, it may be more practical to accept the division of the country. Sorta similar situation to Cyprus, where the UN peacekeepers safeguarded a division of the country while UN doesn't recognize Northern Cyprus. Of course, Libya might turn into the same deadlock, with a UN-recognized government in Benghazi only controlling the Eastern half. Then again, it might not.

 

Also it is not a good lesson to teach other Arab dictators (Syria, Yemen, Bahrain) that if you are just brutal enough then you can stay in power while if you largely limit the use of power to tear gas (as in Tunisia and Egypt) you will be ousted.

 

Maybe more to the point, for whatever reason there was much more media attention to Libya than to the Ivory Coast already from the beginning. Some politicians are afraid of being the ones who did nothing while thousands of Libyans got slaughtered. I don't think they are afraid of voters who blame the Ivory Coast tragedy on them.

 

Btw, thanks for your kind words, Jimmy. FWIW I find it strange that Obama (while not a military expert he is an expert in the US constitution) failed to seek the congress' approval which seems to be required by the constitution. I wonder how much weight that issue has in the US debate.

[PassedOut]

The world does need a regular way of dealing with oppressive governments. Eventually acceptable standards will be codified by an international body -- perhaps the UN -- with an enforcement system to match. I won't live to see that happen. But until it does, dealing with these situations will always be fraught with ambiguity.

 

I do see a big difference between launching a full-scale invasion of a country to overturn its government and establishing a no-fly zone (with the attendant explosions) to protect folks from a military assault by an oppressive dictator. There is no guarantee that the action in Libya will end well, but that's ambiguity for you. It should not be permitted to evolve into an invasion.

 

I do appreciate the way Obama has handled this, without pretending that he has some simplistic ready-made answer for resolving difficult and ambiguous situations. Better to think things through and cooperate with other governments in a well-defined action than to cowboy up. It will be interesting to hear his rationale for acting without a specific congressional resolution. But it's likely that quite a few more lives would have been lost while congress was "debating."

 

Nicholas Kristoff described the reactions of the Libyans who cared for the US airman whose plane crashed: Hugs From Libyans

 

This may be a first for the Arab world: An American airman who bailed out over Libya was rescued from his hiding place in a sheep pen by villagers who hugged him, served him juice and thanked him effusively for bombing their country.

 

Even though some villagers were hit by American shrapnel, one gamely told an Associated Press reporter that he bore no grudges. Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.

The citizens of any country bear the primary responsibility for overturning a regime that becomes oppressive. I understand that this responsibility becomes difficult to exercise in the face of money and arms supplied to the regime from the outside, and the US makes a huge mistake whenever it contributes to propping up oppressive regimes.

 

When the people do rise up, it seems fair to lend them a hand to neutralize some of the imported firepower -- even when some of that imported firepower might have come from my own country.

[nigel_k]

I really don't accept these arguments along the lines of 'We shouldn't intervene in Libya when we didn't do anything about [insert other totalitarian shithole here]'. There just aren't enough military resources to go around so why not apply them first where there is some benefit, such as reducing oil prices? If a chocolate factory and a broccoli farm are on fire and I only have one hose, then I feel sad for the farmer but my decision is an easy one.

 

I agree with PassedOut that we need a standard, agreed way of dealing with oppressive governments. My view is that law and relationships between nations are not analagous to law and relationships between individuals. It's more of a Wild West situation and needs similar solutions. There should be a special form of UN resolution where the leader of a country is basically declared an outlaw and has one week to hand themselves over to the International Criminal Court. Otherwise any nation, group or individual who wants to can kill them and claim a reward. Many people might find this distasteful but IMO it is fast, cheap and practical. It would be strictly limited to the leader and anyone protecting them. If they hand over power to someone just as bad you need a new resolution.

[luke warm]

FWIW I find it strange that Obama (while not a military expert he is an expert in the US constitution) failed to seek the congress' approval which seems to be required by the constitution. I wonder how much weight that issue has in the US debate.

i'm not an expert by any means and i'm sure someone will correct me if this is wrong, but i believe the war powers act (or resolution, or whatever) gives the president some length of time to notify congress of military action and a set length of time to carry out that action (unless congress in the meantime passes legislation "legitimatizing" it)

[blackshoe]

The President has 48 hours to notify Congress, and can commit troops for sixty days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period) without Congressional approval.

 

I've always viewed the Navy and Marine Corps as the President's "actions short of war" tool. But the problem is exacerbated by the end run our government has made against the establishment of a standing army. By that I mean that the Founders envisioned that there wouldn't even be an army unless we were at war, or about to go to war, and attempted to prevent the establishment of a standing army by limiting appropriations to support one to two years. The end run is that Congress has basically rubber stamped renewal of the appropriations every two years, thus keeping the army active in perpetuity — the standing army which the Founders described as "the bane of liberty".

[Winstonm]

Also, ain't nobody surprised that every day about 10x people on Ivory coast are dying compared to Libya and nobody is saying anything about intervention there?

 

 

People are expendable; oil is not. How much oil is underneath the Ivory Coast?

[kenberg]

Probably our government is not operating exactly as Madison had in mind. Times change.

 

 

I got a question here. This 30 billion we just blocked or froze or seized or whatever. We can do this why? And what can we do with it? Save Social Security? Throw a really big party? More seriously, can we redirect it, some of it, to the rebels?

 

The whole thing makes my head spin. As I get it, Libya was suppose to pay a big penalty, maybe 1.5 billion or so, for the Lockerbie-PanAm business. So they pressured some US and European companies to come up with the cash. So, through higher prices, we, not Qadaffi, paid the penalty. Anyway, through this and that, Qadaffi et al ended up about thirty bil plus. Pretty much with our (well, not my) knowledge and cooperation. But now we are grabbing it. If this money was, as it sounds, obtained basically by strong arm tactics against businesses, with the costs passed on to the consumers, could we launch a class action suit to get the money back to us? Oops, then the lawyers would get it. Oh well.

 

30 billion here, 30 billion there, it could add up. Yeah, Ev Dirksen beat me to this observation.

[helene_t]

I have been wondering about those frozen assets also. Hopefully Libya will have a legitimate government within a few months and then we (well, not me) can just release the money. OTOH if Gadaffi "wins" the war, or if Libya gets divided, I am not sure which laws would apply and which court should settle the issue about who gets the money.