Attention Mr and Mrs America and all ships at sea. We interrupt this blogcast to bring you an important news bulletin. President Obama will speak to the nation from the White House at 3:30 Eastern time on the Japan nuclear situation.
In Libya, pro-Qaddafi forces continue to pound rebel forces from the air and have closed to within 100 miles of the last remaining rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Meanwhile, the UN is continuing to negotiate the possibility of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that a no-fly zone would require targeted strikes in order to protect the pilots and planes. (She did not state whether she meant UN/US pilots or Libyan.)
Finally, Mrs Clinton has denied Pakistani reports that the US Government has paid 2.4 million dollars to the families of two Pakistanis shot and killed by an American contractor to secure his "Pardon" and release as a well as a promise that some family members will be allowed to relocate in the US.
"Riiiiiiight."
We now return you to regular blogcasting.
10 comments:
Obama's foreign policy has been as disastrous as his campaign to bring the Olympics to Chicago.
.
Did he give his Final Four picks?
He is up to speed on all the strengths and weaknesses of each team and the probable outcomes. I hear his golf game is improving too.
The economy, foreign policy, the two wars, Libya, and the rest will just have to wait until the tournament is over and he works the fade out of his drive.
I read that the president is under pressure from the Pentagon NOT to get involved in another middle eastern or Arab-speaking country. That's a first -- the military argue that we should not intervene. Makes it difficult to do the right thing when we really should. But then, after GWB and Rumsfeld drag us into one war we shouldn't have been in, and drag out another that should have been a surgical strike, it sort of wears out the capacity to move when we should move.
If Bush was wrong to go into Iraq then why should Obama takes us into Libya?
1 To kill Qaddafi
I'll go along with that part of it.
Gary, the problem with both the war-mongers and the peaceniks is that they are always ready to fight (or to condemn) the LAST WAR. Iraq in 1991 was not Vietnam, Afghanistan in 2001 was not Iraq, unfortunately, having grasped that, the Bushies failed to note that Iraq also was not Afghanistan in 2001, and Libya in 2011 is not Iraq in 2003.
In Afghanistan, we went to kick the butt of people who actually did us direct damage, and those who willingly sheltered them.
In Iraq, we were told we would be "welcomed as liberators" by people who had not invited us and were not in a state of revolt. We WERE welcomed, briefly, then shot at from three different political perspectives.
In Libya, a popular protest movement has already made clear where "the people" stand, an isolated but well armed autocrat is shooting them wholesale while proclaiming "My people love me, they would die for me," and our intervention has been endorsed by not only the UN, but the Arab League.
Each case is different, and stands on its own merits.
I think we agree that American boots should not be on the ground. One reason is to be clear that this is not going to be another case of us bringing anyone "government in a box." The other is, there really are lots of factions and allegiances, and we cannot get in the middle of it, even if we find we like some better than others. That is a valid lesson from Afghanistan to apply.
I'd like to hear someone in the administration enunciate exactly what our goals are in Libya. Do we simply want a regime change? Is so, do we care who would take over next? What do we do if there is a standoff? Are we in favor of splitting up the country? Do we want to establish a democracy there? Does it look like we are trying to impose our will there?
Something about the whole thing makes me uncomfortable. I don't like being the go-to bully for the UN. The UN is a hostile organization as far as I am concerned. As a matter of principle only, having the UN intervene in a purely local civil war is a bad precedent. I don't like Qudaffi either but we have no cause to go to war with him. I don't think France or England do either. Are we now obliged to protect every minority in the world with military force? Is it ok to intervene only when Left Wing factions are under attack?
Colin Powell was in the forefront of the military's reluctance to get into any conflict without the clear objectives and total support of the country behind them before we go in. This was in consequence to their experience in Viet Nam. However, it is the military's role to advise and then do as they are told. They don't make foreign policy.
Insofar as Bush dragging us into a war in Iraq, read what all the prominent Democrats said AT THE TIME:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
Hopefully, that lie will be put to rest at long last.
.
Miggie,
I have one goal in Libya. To see Qaddafi dead in payment for PA 103.
I'd like that too, Gary, but we don't do assassinations and the alternatives are complicated and expensive in both blood and treasure. There were worse or more human atrocities in Rowanda. The governments are shooting people in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. So how do we decide which civil war to intervene in?
Being part of a coalition doesn't give me any comfort. We should only do what is in our interests. If others have some kind of stake in this, let them act alone. The participation of the Arab League in this case is suspect to me. What are their interests in Libya? I see where they are backing away already claiming this is not what they bargained for.
It's a mess.
.
Miggie says we have no legitimate grounds to take military action against Qadaffi.
Gary says our ONLY objective should be to kill Qadaffi.
I say, our only legitimate objective is to destroy Qadaffi's overwhelming military advantage over the civilian population of Libya, particularly his air transport and tactical strike capacity.
Whether he dies is not our concern. If letting him leave the country alive is the price of rapid restoration of peace, that is a small price to pay. What replaces him is not our call to make. Therefore, our troops should not disembark on Libyan soil.
Post a Comment