What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya?

The fact of the matter about Libya is that it's not going to be another Egypt. The situation in Libya is terrible! It's a literal bloodbath! People are being killed there every day (on both sides) and the situation may devolve into a civil war.

So far, Obama has sent military forces closer to Libya's shores and he has denounced the violence there. He has called the violence perpetrated by the Libyan government "unacceptable".

Europe is encouraging a no-fly zone over Libya. Should Obama go along with that and, if so, should he enforce a no-fly zone?

At the State Department, P.J. Crowley pointed out that arming the rebels would be illegal unless the U.N. arms embargo were modified or lifted. Should Obama lift the embargo and arm the rebels?

On Monday, pro-Ghadafi forces launched airstrikes against anti-Ghadafi forces and Obama warned those loyal to Ghadafi that they would be "held to account" for that act. What do you think Obama should do to "hold them to account"?

As international humanitarian efforts stepped up, Obama said NATO was consulting about "a wide range of potential options, including potential military options, in response to the violence that continues to take place inside of Libya." Do you think Obama should use military force against Ghadafi?

 

Let Africa or Europe or the Middle East deal with it. We have enough problems and enough irons in the fire.

 

But, Obama has already sent military forces closer to the Libyan coast, he's called the violence "unacceptable" and told pro-Ghadafi forces that they'll be "held accountable". If the situation is unacceptable, what does he intend to do to make the situation more acceptable? Also, he issued an ultimatum to the pro-Ghadafi forces that they will be "held accountable" for their actions. Are his words hollow or does he intend to carry through and make certain that they're held accountable?

 

Hopefully, they are hollow and the media will move onto the next big ratings story before we get ourselves involved any deeper.

 

Bush would have made up some intelligence story and invaded them by now.

 

Stay well and treuly out of it

 

What does Bush have to do with this?

 

Well, Obama has taken military action and started bombing Libya. Do you agree with Obama's decision? The general consensus of the responses seemed to indicate that everyone wanted us to "stay out of it". Well, we're in the thick of it now so what do you think the repercussions will be for Obama and the United States? Many of Obama's supporters are very anti-war and anti-military so do you think they'll abandon their support for him or do you think they'll just turn a blind eye?

In a statement broadcast on state TV, Ghadafi's military said the strikes killed 48 people -- "mostly women, children and religious clerics." "The majority of these attacks were on public areas, hospitals and schools. They frightened the children and women near those areas that were subject to this aggression," the military said. Russia said Sunday that innocent civilians were being killed, and urged more caution. China's foreign ministry said Sunday it did not agree with the use of force in international relations. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also denounced the military intervention. "They (the United States) want to appropriate the oil in Libya; they don't care about anyone's life in that region," Chavez said.

 

While my preference would be that would have offered only a support role and let the region do the active military enforcement of the UN decisions - 'The Region' generally being much of (especially southern) Europe, the Arab League, etc - I do like that there is active military involvement from a number of nations...like Spain, France, Italy, Qatar, etc and not just the US and UK enforcing the decisions.

I recognize that we bring assets to the table that are unique but I think the world would be a stronger and safer place if other regions take the lead in UN approved things like this.

 

There are so many snakes and pitfalls on either side of this issue, I could easily understand picking either side. However, after all BO's BS, the absolute single thing he should not have done is sit on the side lines with his fingers up his butt. I am not sure how history is going to look at his actions.

 

From the coalition that seems to be actively enforcing this no fly zone...France, Canada, Italy, Spain, Qatar, UAE, and more, I am not so sure how much he sat around with his thumbs up his butt. I have a feeling, like her or not, Clinton - under his orders - has probably been a very busy lady behind the scenes.

This is not going to be the last problem in the Middle East (and Africa) and, if real coalitions like this are able to be formed, things might really change for the better in the world. And countries like Russia and China might find themselves even more isolated in their condemnations of these kinds of actions.

I am not a fan of a lot of things the President has done but I think this may be one where I could end up approving a lot in how the situation is being handled.

 

I am not sure how anyone in their right mind could be against supporting the no fly zone. There have been many countries that have committed genocide over the years, but Libya is the first one to my recollection that announced their intention to do so to the international community. To stand by and watch as Khaddafi (spelling?) kills his own people after he announced his intentions publicly makes every nation in a position to stop him complicit in the murders if they do not attempt to stop him.

I really don't care about all the reasons that people give for why we shouldn't get involved in Libya. The only reason that matters is that is the right thing to do. Having said that, I rather like the way that President Obama has handled the situation to this point. He did not go "cowboy" and just attack Libya. The United States in cooperation with other nations went the UN, got a resolution, and formed a coalition. My only issue with the President's handling of the situation is his declaration that the United States will not send ground troops into Libya. That statement seems to be a direct political statement intended to pacify the left wing base of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, it hinders the entire operation and will embolden Khaddafi who now knows that he will not have to face American armed forces on the ground.

 

I am not sure what kind of a distinction there really is behind an 'unannounced genocide' and an 'announced genocide' but our reactions to it in particular is usually based upon national interest. And we certainly have some in this case. But, there are a number of countries that also have it and more. And I think that makes them more than capable of taking care of the problem. It does our national security no good to commit troops to another regime change when we still have a couple hundred thousand tied up with our last 2 regime changes. Other countries can take the lead.

 

I explained the difference, it makes those in a position to prevent it from happening complicit. My point is that it should not be based solely upon national interest, ethics should play a major role. FWIW, I don't support sending ground troops into Libya, I just don't think we should tell them that we won't. That is a severe tactical mistake. The President could have told the democratic base that he had no plans to send troops into Libya via back channels, there was no reason to make it a public declaration.

 

So like in Sudan, if genocide is ongoing for years and years but unannounced, we can just let it keep going on and on without military intervention and somehow not be complicit? That isn't an 'unethical' choice? Because if we are going to go on ethics, we better be prepared to have a whole lot of US troops in various countries in Africa ASAP because there is a lot of killing going on that isn't making the breaking news story of the day.

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the statement about saying no troops as the UN mandate is pretty specific in what the objective is and it does not seem to include a scenario that would require any troops by anyone, let alone us, from what I have read. So, all that really does is assure the coalition that we aren't going to do another regime change.

 

I just find it curious that Obama has cited the killing of civilians in Libya as the reason for military action, however he's strangely silent when it comes to Darfur in the Sudan, Yemen and Somalia which are engaged in the same tactics of wholesale murder. Not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah. So, I have to ask "Why Libya"? I also agree with Lehigh that it's a tactical mistake for Obama to broadcast his intentions not to send in ground troops. This may have been his intent, but don't broadcast it. I think this bespeaks a lack of leadership and certainly an inability as a military tactician.

I also find it strange that this forum's liberal members haven't been vocal about Libya, it's revolt or Obama's use of force against Ghadafi. No opinions, liberal members?

 

There is a difference between enforing a no fly zone and activly attacking Ghaddafi ground forces around Bengazi, what we are doing is taking a active part in supporting one side against another in a civil war. I notice the lack of threats of intervention in Bahraine (spelling) while they kill there civilian population for daring to protest or about the recent jailing of children in syria for calling for greater freedom! True Khadaffi should have been removed a long time ago and certainly after the Lockarbie incident but lets not hide behind words we are after a regime change in the country.
The opening moves were made by the French and not the US or us Brits for a change hopefuly the Arab world will remember that

 

We are so outraged that Gaddafi would use weapons on his own citizens even though he has sponsored terrorism for years that we feel the need to attack him even though we, meaning several NATO countries, are the ones that armed him. As long as we can sell him weapons, he is just fine with us. If he decides to use those weapons to hold onto power, then we must destroy him. Why not just NOT sell him weapons in the first place.

Article:

Which EU countries armed Libya under Gaddafi? The EU arms sales to Libya statistics, collected by the European Union, are not exactly public knowledge.

We only know about them because of some excellent work by Dan O'Huiggin, who found the complete breakdown of EU military exports in some distant corner of the Europa website and published a breakdown of 2009, the latest year available.

The data, only available as a PDF, is tricky to export but we bring you the latest five years here. It covers from 2005 (the first year after the end of the arms embargo in 2004) right up to 2009.

Roll over bars for numbers. Download the data Last week we looked at the UK's exports to the Middle East and North Africa. How does the EU data compare?

The key points are:

• The EU granted export licenses for €834.5m worth of arms exports in the first five years after the arms embargo was lifted in October 2004
• 2009 is the highest amount ever: €343.7m
• Italy is the top exporter, with €276.7m over the five years
• The UK got off to a big start in 2005, with €58.9m of the €72.2m total. UK licenses over the five years are worth €119.35m
• Malta saw some €79.7m of guns go through the Island en route to Libya in 2009 - apparently sold via an Italian company

It's worth checking out Dan O'Huiggin's round-up of the brilliant European coverage of these sales for examples of the arms trade in action.

Where do I get the data?

There's no single entry point. You can find the 2009 report here and this search term will get you 2008 as well. You can get earlier years here too.

There are some caveats you should take into account too - these are licenses, so actual sales could be less. They also don't show who the end-user is. So, for example, some of the French licenses are undoubtedly granted for UK companies exporting via Paris. The data is perhaps deliberately obscure.

But we've got the full five years below. What can you do with it?

EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi? | News | guardian.co.uk

 

Another thing being glossed over in all this good feeling about deposing a dictator and protecting people is that this 'rebel region' of Libya that we are now involved in has a history of terrorist groups and Islamic Fundamentalism. These groups are anti Gadfly (I am not going to bother trying to get his name right every time). It is also a region that has a history of fighters who went to fight against the US in Iraq. Not to mention the tribal chiefs who are anti-Gadfly because they want control of the country's oil reserves and have little to no interest in any real freedom movement.

 

Our intentions.

Obama administration approved $40billion in private arms sales to countries including Libya and Egypt
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:15 PM on 12th March 2011

The U.S. government approved $40billion in private arms sales to countries including Libya and Egypt in 2009 - before they both dissolved into unrest this year - the State Department reported. From 2008 to 2009, the U.S. authorized an increase in sales of military shipments to the now-toppled Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak and the embattled kingdom of Bahrain.

But they did reduce the sales approvals to Muammar Gaddafi's Libyan government to $15million that year from $46 million in 2008. Armed: From 2008 to 2009, the U.S. authorized an increase in sales of military shipments to the now-toppled Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak, left, but reduced sales approvals to Muammar Gaddafi's Libyan government Libya is now under a blanket weapons ban imposed last month by the Obama administration.

The $40 billion overall figure during the first year of the Obama administration is an increase on total approved arms sales over the final year of the Bush administration in 2008, when the State Department licensed $34.2billion. The $40billion figure during the first year of the Obama administration is an increase from the last year of the Bush government in 2008, when the State Department licensed $34.2billion
The sales were for military hardware from missile systems to bullets that the State Department authorizes from private U.S. defense companies to other countries.

The figures do not include direct U.S. military aid to other nations, providing a limited snapshot of the ebb and flow of American arms abroad. They are also for proposed sales rather than actual shipments. The State figures detailed sales of U.S. defense items for Egypt ($101million) and Bahrain ($88million).

The figures show $458,000 in tear gas sales licensed to Egypt, where there were numerous reports that U.S.-supplied crowd-control gas suppressed democracy protesters in Cairo.

The U.S. authorized $18,000 in tear gas for Bahrain in 2008, but did not license it in 2009, the figures show.

Both countries were also authorized shipments of firearms, shotguns and close assault weapons. All sales to Libya were restricted to non-lethal equipment.

Almost all of the equipment approved in 2009 were aircraft parts, compared to more than $1million that had been approved in 2008 for explosives and incendiary agents.

State Department spokesman Mark C Toner said earlier this week that the explosives were limited for use in oil exploration, but other officials raised concerns that the material could be converted into crude battlefield munitions.

In total $7.3billion of the $40billion in U.S.-approved defense sales went to Middle East and North African countries indicating the willingness to pay top dollar for American defense equipment.

Uprising: Figures show $458,000 in tear gas sales licensed to Egypt, where there were numerous reports that U.S.-supplied crowd-control gas suppressed democracy protesters in Cairo Iraq, where U.S. forces are still drawing down and the fledgling government is struggling against militants, was the biggest buyer with $1.51billion, closely followed by Turkey with $1.5billion. William D Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan Washington think tank questioned whether the U.S. was lax in providing such weaponry and crowd-control devices to authoritarian regimes.

'Some of these countries have very serious records of human rights abuses that are being overlooked in deference to other aspects of their relationship with the U.S.,' he said.
Recent riots: Iraq, U.S. forces are still drawing down and the fledgling government is struggling against militants, was the biggest buyer with $1.51billion 'When you're selling something like tear gas, what's it going to be used for? Dissenters, most likely.'

However, other defense experts cautioned that other countries would quickly move to replace the U.S. in any arms sales stopped for human rights concerns.

Matthew Schroeder, an arms expert with the Federation of American Scientists, pointed to a massive surge of $470million in armaments to Libya by European nations while the U.S. held back.

'If you cut off arms sales, a client would go straight to U.S. competitors like Russia or China,' he said, adding that American monitoring of private defense sales is more systematic than most other nations.

State officials say the department is scrutinizing the proposed defense sales as part of an ongoing review process.

As part of the review, the administration is also looking specifically at the use of force by Bahraini security and military forces on peaceful demonstrators and 'will take into account any evidence of gross violations of human rights,' according to a State official.


Read more: Obama administration approved $40billion in private arms sales to countries including Libya and Egypt | Mail Online