What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Libya?

So you would have blamed the small Arab countries for the death of thousands of Libyans. The US was in a unique position to quickly implement a no-fly zone necessary to prevent the massacre of the people in Benghazi. None of the Arab countries that you want to blame were in a position to enforce a no fly zone. Quite frankly, we are fortunate that the French and British are taking an active role as they are.

Your policeman comment is bull****. Only a cowardly American would take that view. From a foreign perspective, the US invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein under the guise that he was a threat to both the US and the people of Iraq. So when another dictator who is known to have sponsored terrorism that has killed US citizens declares his intent to commit genocide, sitting on the sidelines and saying it is someone else's problem is not going to fly. Furthermore, it is morally wrong. We were in a position to stop the death of thousands of innocent human beings. Sitting idle would have been criminal. So before you call Obama a criminal again, look in the mirror.

BTW, Clinton just announced that NATO is taking control of the operation. Does that make you happy?

 

They are fair questions, but consider this. If we had waited for the answers to those questions before taking action, we would be going in to bury thousands of dead Libyans.

 

Now that the leadership in Libya is figured out...What Should Be Obama's Next Move Concerning Yemen? Ivory Coast? Bahrain? Sudan? We better get that figured out before they get worse. And we better decide those before Algeria and Syria flare up.

 

My hope would be that the solutions would be tailor made to effectively address the unique conditions of each scenario.

 

My hope would be that we plan for scenarios with other countries so we don't have to react to a situation before figuring out fundamental questions such as who is in charge.

 

I never said that I would have waited for answers and I still do not have enough info to know what the right answer is or was. Assuming we had waited (not saying that is correct), my big problem is that you cannot tell me whether there would be more or less dead Libyans in the long run. And any attempt you make at trying to guess the answer in a tribal country like that would merely be a guess and nothing more - especially since Al Qaeda is supporting at least one tribe, side or something like that.

 

You have to be kidding. If I could bet on which scenario would end up with more dead Libyans, I would bet everything I had and everything I could borrow on Khaddafi's genocide plan.

 

What are we going to do? Bomb them into submission after we leave? Remember, someone else is in charge starting in one day and there will be no ground troops. Just how do you stop the Banghazi's from killing the Maghrebs? The Murzuqs from killing the Misratahs? etc.?

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.

The question isn't whether or not we're preventing a massacre. It whether or not we should be there in the first place. Libya is a sovereign country regardless whether or not they're ruled by a ruthless dictator. Libya didn't attack us or declare war on us. Now, if Obama wanted to take out Ghadafi because of Pan Am Flight 103 or something like that, he should make it his stated mission. Obama's stated mission is to protect the lives of civilians. Obama has now set a precedent. Is he going to protect the lives in other countries?

The next time you're alone, please feel free to copulate with everyone in the room.

If you feel that way, then you'll have no problem when Obama invades Rwanda, Darfur, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

Hardly. We shouldn't have been in Libya in the first place.

 

Oh you believe the civil war hype, got it!

 

You will often hear Moen accuse Republicans of being FOX watchers and spewing the latest talking points. Posts like this are exactly the reason why. The difference is that Moen uses the accusation as a political tactic to combat Republicans. I don't care what your political affiliation is, an idiot is an idiot. In the Libyan situation, the US had a unique opportunity to prevent the massacre of thousands of innocent people. The most important factor was Khaddafi's public declaration. However, the geography of both the Libyan landscape and it's proximity to our military bases also had a lot to do with the feasibility of the operation.

In most of the countries you listed, it is not possible to prevent the genocide simply by using a no fly zone. Iran especially since they have the largest military in the world. We can't predict the future, but it is entirely possible that we might need to get involved in both Bahrain and Yemen. I am not an isolationist and will have no problem accepting the prudent use of military force for humanitarian reasons in those two countries.

 

Once Gaddafi is gone, what is left? All political parties have been banned. My guess is that it should be easy to steer them to an amicable solution, but how are you going to do that from the British and French jets? I never even said I would not go in. What I am saying is that I would not go in UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS! The conditions have us totally ham strung. How can you win like that. Oh! And just what is win? The military is not to go after Gaddafi, but we want Gaddafi out. I still don't get it. Maybe you can explain it to me.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm a proponent of limited use of military force.

 

It is not an easy situation, and that is precisely the reason for all of the indecision and ambiguity surrounding the policies and goals. I don't know what we should do, how we win, how we get rid of Khaddafi, or how we get out. All I know is that saving those people from almost certain death was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing in not always easy, but that doesn't make it any less right.

 

If I knew that we would actually save people, I would be all for it. 2 weeks ago, I feel reasonably sure we could have done it - probably even today. What I do not see is how we can do it with the conditions BO has agreed to and particularly the conditions that have not even been determined yet which is most of them. How some idiot can agree to a contest without knowing the rules or the objective is beyond me.

I will play you a game of poker any day so long as I determine how the cards are dealt and what wins. I will tell you the rules after each hand. Want to play like that?

 

It is not an easy situation, and that is precisely the reason for all of the indecision and ambiguity surrounding the policies and goals. I don't know what we should do, how we win, how we get rid of Khaddafi, or how we get out. All I know is that saving those people from almost certain death was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing in not always easy, but that doesn't make it any less right.

 

Will Obama soon be using military action in Syria, too? The Syrian government is also killing its own civilians:

Unrest in Syria

Fri, March 25, 2011

The uprising in Libya, which provoked military intervention by the United States and its allies to avert a brutal government crackdown, has dominated this week's headlines. But meanwhile, there's new unrest in yet another Middle Eastern nation--one with perhaps greater strategic implications for the United States.


Could the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad be set to go the way of the dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, which were toppled last month by massive popular protests? And what would that mean for the U.S.?
Here's a rundown on the current situation in Syria:


What exactly has been happening on the ground?

Mass protests against the government have been going on since last week, and on Wednesday, demonstrators in the southern city of Dara'a were killed by al-Assad's security forces while taking refuge in a mosque. The number of casualties hasn't been confirmed, but some witnesses have put it as high as 100.


The deaths prompted even bigger anti-government demonstrations in Dara'a yesterday, and today the protests spread to the capital city of Damascus, where people called out: "Dara'a is Syria" and "We will sacrifice ourselves for Syria." In response, supporters of the president chanted back: "God, Syria, and Bashar, that's all."


UPDATE (4:42 pm): Government forces again reportedly opened fire on protesters today.


Fifteen children in Dara'a were arrested after writing graffiti calling for an end to al-Assad's rule. All were under the age of 14. That sparked demonstrations last week demanding the release of the kids--protests quelled by government security forces using tear gas, water cannons, and live ammunition. In response, anger steadily rose this week, leading to Wednesday's protests at the mosque which triggered more government violence.

 

We should not act until the dictator announces that he is going to kill his people.

 

The only reason we care about any country in the Middle East is because oil companies want access to the oil they have. The people being brutalized, the connections to terrorism, our pronounced democratic goals are all just a ruse to justify our military action and force our will on this region. If the Middle East ran out of oil tomorrow, we'd never set foot in that region of the world again. Asking questions like why do we tolerate the violence in this middle eastern country but not that middle eastern country just demonstrates how ignorant you are to the real reasons we are there at all. Our economy depends on oil because we have allowed the oil companies to turn their best interests into our best interests. Now we are stuck in this situation together.

 

The only reason "we are stuck in this situation" is because "we" (I use that term liberally) have limited the oil companies to dealing with just such countries.