http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-o ... d_facebook


Apparently, Obama can do NO right by the GOP.

Killed Osama
Killed Awlaki
Killed Gaddafi
Oversaw Tunisia gain Democracy
Helped Egypt shed its dictator
Helping Syria gain its freedom by shedding its dictator
Expanded the War in Afghanistan
and ENDED THE WAR IN IRAQ...

YET, michelle bachman believes he has been a foreign policy failure. Nice to see McCain showing his mavericky brand of cowardice again.

Can I ask an honest question, how has President Obama overseen or supported the Arab Spring uprisings? Other than a token, America is with you.. Allah Speed.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... m-20111013
its a good starting point.


for decades the traditional US method of helping was to intervene and provide direct, public support of one side. This is the way McCain and other GOPers wanted and publicly criticised the president for at the onset of libya. YET, the path Obama took was one of quiet support, one that didnt give the US the spotlight. Some saw it as Obama capitulating, or refusing to use the MIGHT of the US military. What ended up working was that it allowed the arabs, to fight for them selves, allowing their victories to be their own. I could go on, but i am late for an appointment. mayhaps when i return i can finish the thought. Suffice it to say the US ambassador to syria has been more than a mere ambassador in this fight and i do not doubt that the syrian government has threatened his life.

I look forward to your return on this. My question would be, how Obama’s policy different than a hands off policy? I am printing the article to read during lunch.

heliochrome85 wrote:What ended up working was that it allowed the arabs, to fight for them selves, allowing their victories to be their own.

The almost daily NATO bombings of Gaddhafi's military armor had nothing to do with it?

The US is part of NATO and, while it was downplayed, we participated actively by direct use of US planes "in NATO" too. The only thing we did not do here (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan) is send in US troops.

BTW, don't get me wrong. I am not complaining about how President Obama handled the situation, but please don't fool yourself into thinking we didn't have a major military hand in it!

Z

We did send SF Advisors to train the rebel army.. those do count as ground troops.

No, they don't. They count as "advisors." They count as "individuals." They do not count as "ground troops." What President Obama sent in to Uganda can barely be called "ground troops," and it's mostly because they're actually going in there to kill people.

Yes, we were involved in Libya in a big way. No, we refused to lead the charge. Yes, it's better that way.

IBCoupe wrote:Yes, we were involved in Libya in a big way. No, we refused to lead the charge. Yes, it's better that way.

it wasnt our revolution. no need to upstage the bride so to speak.

I do find it ironic that we are playing word game over the use of ‘ground troops’ as if the absence of say the land units does not constitute an invasion or act of war. Yet we bombed the s*** out of Libyan Forces along with our NATO Allies, participated in all sorts of support roles and play word games with our involvement. To me, the admirable leaders in this whole ‘war’ were the Germans. They stayed out of it.

Cold_Zero wrote:I do find it ironic that we are playing word game over the use of ‘ground troops’ as if the absence of say the land units does not constitute an invasion or act of war. Yet we bombed the s*** out of Libyan Forces along with our NATO Allies, participated in all sorts of support roles and play word games with our involvement. To me, the admirable leaders in this whole ‘war’ were the Germans. They stayed out of it.

they have fought enough wars me thinks.

I dont think that is the full reason.. but it did make me smile.

Plus, I get the impression this was France's lead. They didnt even wait for the ink to dry on the treaty before they started launching sorties.

heliochrome85 wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Yes, we were involved in Libya in a big way. No, we refused to lead the charge. Yes, it's better that way.

it wasnt our revolution. no need to upstage the bride so to speak.

Ummm ... without the active involvement of NATO planes, the revolution would have gone entirely the other way ... in a big hurry. The groom would have run away from the altar ... with his previous girlfriend.

Z

heliochrome85 wrote:

Cold_Zero wrote:I do find it ironic that we are playing word game over the use of ‘ground troops’ as if the absence of say the land units does not constitute an invasion or act of war. Yet we bombed the s*** out of Libyan Forces along with our NATO Allies, participated in all sorts of support roles and play word games with our involvement. To me, the admirable leaders in this whole ‘war’ were the Germans. They stayed out of it.

they have fought enough wars me thinks.

A good point.

Z

You forgot to add:

Kept tax breaks for the rich

Cold_Zero wrote:I do find it ironic that we are playing word game over the use of ‘ground troops’ as if the absence of say the land units does not constitute an invasion or act of war. Yet we bombed the s*** out of Libyan Forces along with our NATO Allies, participated in all sorts of support roles and play word games with our involvement. To me, the admirable leaders in this whole ‘war’ were the Germans. They stayed out of it.

The debate over "ground troops" is whether we risked American lives.

I thought it was about either invading a country without a vote in Congress to make War, or the endless war making policies of this country. It seems the first he got away with.

He didn't need Congress, because its enacting legislation gave him the authority to act pursuant to that kind of UN declaration.

It was about the latter, which is why the "risking of American lives" was important - if we're not imposing a ground presence on Libya, we're supporting someone else's war. If we're imposing a ground presence on Libya, we're fighting someone else's war. We did the latter because we did not have "boots on the ground."

Can you not send ground troops to support someone else's war? Yes you can. So that is not the be all end all litmus test in determining supporting a war vs. operating a war. I would almost say, because NATO operated independently of the rebels with their air campaign, that it may be construed that NATO went beyond a support role in the war.

"Boots on the ground", pilots in the sky. There is still no difference. American service men/woman are still at risk . Obama got lucky that this war was over so quickly and public opinion turned on him because of our country's constant war making. That is all.

First, I don't believe NATO operated independently of the Libyan forces. What's your source on that? I was under the impression that NATO's actions were coordinated with the rebels. NATO wasn't taking orders, but that's not necessary.

And there's a huge difference between American pilots (how much were they actually used here?) and American soldiers. One is exposed to enemy fire in brief, controllable periods (if at all), and the other is logistically forced to be engaged in combat situations.

Public opinion didn't turn on him, Republican opinion did. Public opinion remained split 45/45/10 throughout the endeavor, looking at a variety of polls.

I meant to say before public opinion turned on him...

Ah, I get it.

I think it could have easily gone longer without public opinion turning. Folks weren't paying attention, and because our personnel werent in harm's way, there was little reason for them to suddenly care more.

Although, the timeline for the bombing did coincide with the Debt Ceiling debates. Last I checked the bombing campaign for the US side was 600 million in one month. Would like to see what the total expenditures were for the US arm of the effort.

As to your earlier question. I highly doubt that any command and control was coming from the rebel groups. Their tactics seem to be, drive up to the front, shoot wildly and then drive back to your lines. Target Acquisitions, Command Control, SEAD as well as ELINT….all had to come from NATO. I highly doubt the rebels had any say or control over what, where, when anything got bombed. I got the impression that NATO took a more active role in this, than say, Afghanistan where the US provided Arms, training and intelligence and let the Mujahideen fight the insurgency. Or Post Desert Storm Iraq where conducted a no fly zone in the north and south of the country. To say that we (NATO) took a hands off or support role is a bit of an understatement.

Kind of confused as to what you mean by "bit of an understatement." Are you saying it was more than a support role or less?

The fact that their ground tactics were horrendous should indicate that we weren't in command. I agree with that and it's why I said, not questioned, that NATO wasn't taking orders from the rebels. But I'm also pretty sure that NATO wasn't issuing orders to the rebels.

I think you and I are working under different meanings of the word "independently." You're saying that there was a separate command structure. I'm saying that, but for the revolution, NATO wouldn't be doing anything, and that NATO's role in the thing was wholly dependent upon following the lead of the rebels, both in the very act of rebelling, and in, say, not skipping a few cities ahead of the rebels to clear their path.

I think NATO was the very model of a support role. They were more powerful and effective in the limited scope of their engagement, but their actions were wholly dependent upon the rebels' decisions, even if there were no direct orders orders or even requests given to NATO.

Imagine teaching your child to ride a bicycle. Imagine you're holding the handlebars. You might be doing a much better job of keeping the bike upright than the child is at moving it forward, and, in fact, you might be able to move the child forward better, if you wanted to. The child doesn't have to tell you to hold on, and nobody would question that you're only acting in a supporting role. The kid is still cycling, even if you're not telling them where to go.

You seem to think that because NATO was not running the ground war, we purely in a support role. I would envision a support role to provide training, logistics and intel. The US secret war in Afghanistan under Soviet Occupation would be a perfect example of what I am talking about.
In Libya, NATO actively engaged in an Air to Air and Air to Ground war with Gaddafi's forces. They were active combatants in the war (albeit not the ground war). There is implied risk conducting these types of operations. We had an F-15 shot down in Libya and fortunate for the pilot Libyan farmers came to his aid before Search and Rescue forces could pick him up. So yes, I think the NATO effort was more than just a support role. Which is why I support the German view, more and more as I think about it? The justification for involving NATO forces were trumped up as the threat of massacres or genocide from Gaddafi’s forces never materialized. This was a civil war and although we should have supported the National Transitional Government’s troops, we should have not committed to an Air War with Gaddafi’s forces. This all stinks of either, a Cold War Vendetta or of Oil Plundering. Apparently, our Dear President is not immune to our constant war making.

Two points: what of my argument that because we were only there to assist, even violently, our actions were bound by the rebels? If they gave up and went home, think NATO would continue hunting Gaddafi? The mission was constrained to be supportive in nature.

Second point: you're making a Y2K argument. "The actions we took to prevent mass murder were not needed because no mass murder happened." That's absurd. Why isn't your conclusion, "Hey, it worked?" Equally plausible from the two data points you've presented.

I think I have clearly drawn out that because we were combatants in the war, we went well beyond the role of just supporting the effort. While this may not have been illegal, as to the UN mandate signed in Brazil. I am using roughly the same criteria that the United States Military uses in regards to Posse Comitatus, when operating inside the United States, to define a support role versus an active combat role. Maybe it is too pure for you, I can understand that.

As to the second point, I just don’t buy the argument that we supported the rebel cause to prevent atrocities or genocide. Thus, I hold this operation in suspect as being the interventionist war making policy of past Presidents. If that were really the case why then are we not bombing the s*** out of Bahrain, Iran and Syria? Yet we are not. Also if Our Dear President cared about the humanitarian effort, he would have worked (earlier) with the French in Congo and in the region to stop rebel forces from raping women and terrorizing the population. Actually something that has happened. No, Our Dear President has followed in the footsteps of Bush, Clinton and Bush as to taking a blind eye and doing nothing about actual atrocities and genocide and bombing invading/bombing the s*** out of strategically important areas to further our empire.

That seems like a purely formalistic view of whether we're "supporting," and doesnt really lend itself to this kind of discussion. Also, im not following on what "posse comitatus" has to do with this. In the context of the dichotomy we're arguing about (is NATO supporting a Libyan revolution or waging a war against Gaddhafi?), I'm not really seeing the usefulness of that approach, regardless.

And I've been over this with Z repeatedly: that we can't be everything to everyone does not mean we aren't ever something to someone. Whether we prevented an atrocity has nothing to do with whether we've prevented them in the past. If you want to argue that Gaddhafi was above carpet-bombing uppity cities, go for it, but I'll remind you that he publicly executed dissenters in his own country and used his diplomats to coordinate the assassination of dissenting Libyan refugees abroad.

We didn't get involved because we were worried about Gaddhafi killing the rebels. We got involved, ostensibly because we worried that Gaddhafi would indiscriminately kill millions of people in the process of putting down the rebels. You and Z ask the absurd question, "Why not go everywhere, then?" Because we can't afford to, and you know it.

Why not Syria? Beats me. I don't see the security reports.

The way the United States Military conducts itself in regards to operations inside of the United States, because of posse comitatus, seems to me the best example of what a support role. That is why I used it as an example.

Isaac, I am not trying to support the idea that we should be world policeman view point. I find the justification for entering into the Libyan Civil War problematic. I guess I was suggesting that the genocide in the Congo and the Iranian Uprising/Suppression occurred well before the Libyan Civil War. Yet we/he chose to do nothing. If price was an issue then, it certainly is an issue would have been prior to entering in the Libyan Civil War. The uprising in Syrian and Bahrain occurred right around the same time as Libya. Why did Our Dear President action in Libya and not another? Again, I go back to my assertion that this was done as a Cold War Vendetta or for plundering Oil. Both of which leave me wondering if we are just continuing the same policies of Bush, Clinton and Bush.

I don't think it's a good example because that's not the limit of what can be supportive action. That is supportive action, but it's a terrible way to measure all supportive action.

When the justification is what it was, ask two questions:

Is that actually happening?
Is that enough?

And that's it. Anything else is bound to be purely speculative and unrelated to the actual action. If it's enough, I'll support your other calls to action. But there may be really important reasons why one is different than the other, and until you establish that there aren't non-negligible differences, the "You must be up to no good because you don't support all rebellions in the face of violent suppression" is premature.

I'd like to note that in demanding to know the difference, yoi're supporting an argument for Libya-like action in Syria and the Congo, not disarming an argument against going to Libya. This is because yoi're implicitly accepting the Libyan justification as valid.