Some Questions about our involvement in Libya

#1

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
67,689
Likes
55,165
#1
Given we have launched military actions against a country engaged in a civil war, here are a few questions I'd like to see answers to.

1. Has there been a clear statement American interests here? What is the security threat to America or significant interests that require military attacks on another country?

2. What is the objective? What are we trying to achieve?

3. What was/is the role of Congress in making/continuing this decision?

4. What does "success" look like?
 
#2
#2
Given we have launched military actions against a country engaged in a civil war, here are a few questions I'd like to see answers to.

1. Has there been a clear statement American interests here? What is the security threat to America or significant interests that require military attacks on another country?

2. What is the objective? What are we trying to achieve?

3. What was/is the role of Congress in making/continuing this decision?

4. What does "success" look like?


Wait, I thought the company line was that Obama was to be criticized because he wasn't acting in Libya. Now he is being criticized FOR acting in Libya?

Obviously there has been a change to the game plan. Can someone please email me the new memo on this?
 
#3
#3
volinbham, I personally feel this is a humanitarian action to prevent the deaths of civilians. However, Libya and it's current leader have been longtime enemies of the US and it's allies, and have been linked to various terrorism organizations and plots. One can't criticize this engagement without also criticizing the Iraqi expedition in 2003.
 
#4
#4
volinbham, I personally feel this is a humanitarian action to prevent the deaths of civilians. However, Libya and it's current leader have been longtime enemies of the US and it's allies, and have been linked to various terrorism organizations and plots. One can't criticize this engagement without also criticizing the Iraqi expedition in 2003.

I would just like to have a stated objective of what our goal is. It it's to protect civilians from a ruthless leader, then I'm fine with that. Heck, if we want to overthrow him, I'm fine with that. Just tell us why we're doing this.
 
#5
#5
Given we have launched military actions against a country engaged in a civil war, here are a few questions I'd like to see answers to.

1. Has there been a clear statement American interests here? What is the security threat to America or significant interests that require military attacks on another country?
No.
2. What is the objective? What are we trying to achieve?
Our government wants to be perceived as compassionate and humanitarian. Unfortunately, the likelihood of causing even greater civilian casualties in a bombing campaign without forward observers on the ground is very high (see Afghanistan). The US and its Western Allies will have to deal with these repercussions for a long-time (Quadaffi is much more adept at information ops than the US military is0.
3. What was/is the role of Congress in making/continuing this decision?

4. What does "success" look like?
Apparently, Clinton has made it clear that success hinges on the removal of Quadaffi. Once again, we find ourselves in the business of regime change.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#6
#6
We kept the rebels from being squashed. Like we should have done for the Kurds back in the 90's. That was and is the stated objective.

I am getting a vibe of extreme hypocrisy, but maybe I'm jumping the gun and being too sensitive.
 
#9
#9
One can't criticize this engagement without also criticizing the Iraqi expedition in 2003.

Iraq was projected as a national threat to America. You can make a case that was over played and not true, but we didn't enter the Iraqi expedition for humanitarian efforts. It was turned into humanitarian operation later when no real threat to America was found there, hince the open criticism and unpopularity of the war later.
 
#10
#10
Iraq was projected as a national threat to America. You can make a case that was over played and not true, but we didn't enter the Iraqi expedition for humanitarian efforts. It was turned into humanitarian operation later when no real threat to America was found there, hince the open criticism and unpopularity of the war later.

Not completely true. Look up the pre-war justifications for our involvement in Iraq. The media ran with the national security threats, however, IIRC the majority of the justifications involved human rights and defiance of UN resolutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#11
#11
Not completely true. Look up the pre-war justifications for our involvement in Iraq. The media ran with the national security threats, however, IIRC the majority of the justifications involved human rights and defiance of UN resolutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

What was being solid to the American people is what I'm talking about. They solid bad guys are there and they want to hurt us and our way of life.

They didn't sell we want to end the human suffrage and make Iraq a beacon of freedom in the area.
 
#12
#12
Wait, I thought the company line was that Obama was to be criticized because he wasn't acting in Libya. Now he is being criticized FOR acting in Libya?

Obviously there has been a change to the game plan. Can someone please email me the new memo on this?

I've been consistent in my comments. I question the administration's handling of this from an overall strategic perspective. We went from being the last to condemn Col. Q to being the first to lob missiles at him.

I question whether the admin has a plan WRT the ME and they've done nothing to suggest they do.

volinbham, I personally feel this is a humanitarian action to prevent the deaths of civilians. However, Libya and it's current leader have been longtime enemies of the US and it's allies, and have been linked to various terrorism organizations and plots. One can't criticize this engagement without also criticizing the Iraqi expedition in 2003.

We kept the rebels from being squashed. Like we should have done for the Kurds back in the 90's. That was and is the stated objective.

I am getting a vibe of extreme hypocrisy, but maybe I'm jumping the gun and being too sensitive.

These questions were asked about Iraq and rightfully so. Are these not legit questions?

Further, answers were at least attempted for Iraq. The threat/interests were repeatedly articulated - ad naseum both in public speeches, press conferences and in front of the UN Sec Council. Whether or not you buy the answers doesn't mean they were not offered.

Congress authorized the use of force with a very, very strong majority (maybe 80%?).

Objectives were stated (removal of SH, establishment of democratically elected government). Again, you may disagree with the objectives but they were stated.

The exit plan was never created/articulated.

I see no hypocrisy in asking the same questions that were asked for Iraq or any use of military force. If you asked them for Iraq why wouldn't you ask them for Libya?

Answers to these questions would give me more confidence that this administration has some plan other than simply reacting to CYA. At this point, I don't see much indication.
 
#13
#13
Not completely true. Look up the pre-war justifications for our involvement in Iraq. The media ran with the national security threats, however, IIRC the majority of the justifications involved human rights and defiance of UN resolutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yep, it was basically an accumulation of issues. WMD threat, defiance of sanctions, defiance of no-fly zone, human rights, democracy.

At least all these reasons were repeatedly stated by the administration.

Other than a vague nod to avoiding a blood bath (pre-emptive military move anyone) this administration has been tight lipped about the reasons.
 
#14
#14
What was being solid to the American people is what I'm talking about. They solid bad guys are there and they want to hurt us and our way of life.

They didn't sell we want to end the human suffrage and make Iraq a beacon of freedom in the area.

I have a feeling that you watch MTV and Comedy Central for your news...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
I think we should always have a plan and a specific objective when involving ourselves in overseas conflicts. I agree with you.

Just find the criticism of Obama on this especially empty given 1) prior criticism that he was soft in military matters; 2) criticism that he wasn't acting in Libya and should be; and 3) past GOP presidents and their proclivity to get us involved in much more serious conflicts with no defined goals.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#17
#17
I think we should always have a plan and a specific objective when involving ourselves in overseas conflicts. I agree with you.

Just find the criticism of Obama on this especially empty given 1) prior criticism that he was soft in military matters; 2) criticism that he wasn't acting in Libya and should be; and 3) past GOP presidents and their proclivity to get us involved in much more serious conflicts with no defined goals.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Did I call him soft militarily?

I did not criticize him for not acting in Libya. I did criticize him for taking no position on Libya.

Why does past behavior of GOP presidents merit a pass for this president? If you are referring to Iraq - the goals were defined; the exit was not.


Would you also not say that Obama soundly criticized Bush for exactly what he is doing now?
 
#23
#23
Apparently, Clinton has made it clear that success hinges on the removal of Quadaffi. Once again, we find ourselves in the business of regime change.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Which in effect invokes Colin Powell's "pottery barn rule "
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#24
#24
Really, the different dynamic in public response to this conflict and the 2nd Iraqi War shows you how hopelessly political the general public has become. A bunch of robots.
 

VN Store



Back
Top