Libya and Interventionalism

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What are thoughts on yet another interventional misadventure that the Obama administration is dragging Americans into? I am curious to see what the goals of this latest folly are? Save me the retort about a concern for human life. Americans have no obligation to go around the world saving everyone from each and every internicine conflict. Let the Libyans solve their own disputes:

"The 2009-10 slaughter of Shia Huthi tribesmen in Yemen by the U.S.-trained and/or -armed forces of Riyadh and Sanna reveals the Sunni regimes’ attitude toward Shia. In effect, Saudi Arabia and Yemen did to the Huthis what Gaddafi today is doing to Libyan rebels, though the Libyans are better armed.
--Question: Why the differing U.S. and Western reactions to the two events?
--Answer: (a) Washington needs Saudi oil and Riyadh’s purchases of U.S. debt, and (b) Washington and its allies need Salih's regime to fight al-Qaeda in Yemen. In short, A + B = Destruction of the Huthi minority with the silent acquiescence -- nay, silent approval -- of the virtuous Western advocates of freedom strugglers in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia."

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...all-fears-5032

[KingKhan]

Also add the Yemeni snipers who killed 40+ protesters in Yemen yesterday. Where's the outcry for that?

[gadoonwal]

another war for oil.why do,nt they stop bahranis to stop the killing of innocenst people?
american base their an american pupet king there
why do,nt they attack yeman?where salih killed hundereds.
westren and US pupet there
why d,nt they attack oman?where the king killed many.
why did,nt they attack mubarak in egypt?when he was killing civilains?
safe way for their old aged pupet.
why do,nt they stop saudis from discrimination and from the killing of civilians?
pupet govt there.
All of the above why not attack on Iory Coast where the man in power lost the election there but killing innocents and not handing over the power to elected leader of the country,you know why?
no oil there.
The world is under the power of evils and ,,,,,,,,munafekeen,,,,,,,,,,,.
They care for oil not people.

[Wrayun]

Obama and his administration are just stooges. This is being orchestrated by powerful interests in the region. I would separate Tunisia and Egypt from the Libyan issue. They put their weight behind those uprisings because they didn't want too look like hypocrites, and contradict what they claim to represent i.e. freedom. What happened in Tunisia and Egypt was totally unexpected and not in the interests of global players. With Libya, they are trying to get some leverage in the region.

That being said, Gaddafi is a lunatic, like all dictators, a power hungry thug who is putting his nation in such a situation which could be exploited. Instead of the idiot going out and meeting these protesters, calming things down taking control, he resorted to the use of force. Turning the public against him. But what can you expect from these idiots, they have no sense of diplomacy. The whole Muslim world (except Iran) lack diplomacy, in result of which the innocent masses suffer.

Jazbat, huff and tuff, such emotions are always exploited by the cool, level minded Westerners. These neanderthals are getting what they deserve in the Age of Information and Propaganda.

[faye]

they claimed to be suprised by the uprisings but i am skepical (as usual) now they have an excuse to intervene there. might be what 'the powers that be' want.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Scheuer speaks on Libya. Once again, he shows how astute he is. A very similar situation is unfolding in Pakistan and already unfolded in Afghanistan. For the Americans, some on here would love nothing more than getting us bogged down in another war of attrition in Pakistan to suit their feudal, neoconservative, and colonial interests:

Libya and Bahrain: Neutering the Constitution, heading for disaster

Published: March 19, 2011

Next to the right to bear arms, I do not think there is a clearer statement in the U.S. Constitution than the one that says only Congress can declare war. Reasonable people can argue about other, less clear passages, but these two neither need nor will abide “explanation and interpretation” from our Ivy League betters. (NB: I once thought the same about Freedom of Speech, until the elite folks who feel duty-bound to perfect the rest of us riff-raff came up with the debate-stopping tool of laws against “hate speech.”)

With Libya, I believe, we see the end of congressional control over the question of when America goes to war. There has been a good deal of criticism of President Obama’s slowness in unleashing the U.S. military on Colonel Gaddafi’s no-threat-to-the-U.S. forces, but I think, to the contrary, Obama got exactly what he wanted.
From the first, Obama said that “Gaddafi had to go” and so committed the United States to a policy of regime change in Libya. But he had to disguise his intent and goal to satisfy the remaining interest-group shreds and Pacifistic tatters of the Democratic Party that he was not copying George W. Bush.
So what to do?

Well, Obama laid back and let the British and French leaders advance the newest glorious cause of secular progressivism — neo-colonial military intervention. With London and Paris in the lead, the Western interventionist bloc managed to produce a UN resolution authorizing military action against Gaddafi in the name of humanitarian concerns and the hoax known as international law. (How many former USSR officials have been tried for murdering 60 million people between 1917 and 1991?) Up to the last moment, Obama disingenuously played the part of a shy and unwilling bride, determined to protect her virtue to the last. The credibility of his demeanor was, of course, made mock of by Secretary Clinton’s relentless call for “bombings of Libyan military assets,” and the wild-eyed and not-far-short-of-crazed U.S. UN ambassador, Susan Rice. Ms. Rice’s war lust out to sated by the gift of an AK-47, a box of granola bars, and one-way ticket to Benghazi. (NB: Beware also of the lie told by Obama, Clinton, and Rice; Senators McCain and Graham; and much of the media that because Qatar and the UAE are involved in the military mission, and because the UK and France led at the UN, the Libyan intervention will not be seen as a U.S.-led invasion by the Muslim world. Horse hockey! Muslims are not as naive as the bulk of Americans and far better able to see reality through the fog of their leaders’ lies. The Islamic world will see the Libyan action for what it will be: A U.S.-led intervention in yet another Muslim land.)

With the UN Security Council’s authorization for this regime-destroying, neo-colonial military adventure, Mr. Obama threw off his chaste white garments, immediately repeated his “Gaddafi must go” statement, and quickly donned the traditional garb of the U.S. bipartisan elite — the chain mail of military intervention. And so all Americans now go off to another war in which not a single genuine U.S. interest is at stake, and one that cannot be won — if our elite can find a way to define the term — without boots on the ground.

For all of its proven and admirable lethality, ferocity, and tenacity the U.S. Air Force and NATO’s air forces have definitively shown that air power alone never wins anything. Even with large ground-force contingents, for example, the combined U.S. and NATO air forces have not been able to stave off defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of insurgents armed mostly with Korean War-era weapons.

So the die is cast regarding Libya, and the West will fail in its arrogant military endeavor. With Gaddafi’s forces already in Benghazi’s outskirts, the war will quickly become a street-by-street, infantry fight in which the Libyan army’s artillery, armor, and troops can only be destroyed from the air at the cost of destroying much of the city and its civilian population. At this, of course, our effeminate progressive warriors will blanche, realizing that war is not a clean business (a fact not taught at Harvard) and that Gaddafi has lured them into a situation that cannot be “won” from the air. What then? What else? U.S. Marines, British commandos, French legionnaires, and Canadian infantry will be deployed to do what Western leaders will describe as a short operation to “mop up the remnants” of Gaddafi’s forces that air power did not kill. Many months later those troops officially will still be “mopping up,” but actually will be in the midst of a life-and-death fight with Gaddafi’s forces; the veteran Libyan Islamist mujahedin who were at core of the anti-Gaddafi resistance until the West intervened; and other veteran mujahedin who will come — with aid from wealthy Gulf Arab donors — from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Mauritania, and Sudan to fight the infidel invaders and occupiers. (NB: This very possible potential outcome is, of course, why China and Russia abstained at the UN. After all, when your enemies are about to make a blunder of epic and immensely costly proportions, why get in the way?)

And as bad as another military defeat will be for the United States, the demise of the Constitution’s war-making provision is even worse. Obama made no pretense of wanting, let alone getting congressional authorization for his war, and the Senators and Congressmen behaved as spineless ciphers, ready to abdicate their clear constitutional prerogatives to Obama; to has-been European imperialists; and to the fundamentally corrupt, anti-American United Nations. These cowering men and women also showed themselves unwilling to manfully oppose the very essence of tyranny: A U.S. president taking America to a war that only he, his bipartisan cronies, and the media want; without a congressional declaration of war; and with last week’s polls showing that 65-percent of Americans opposed U.S. military intervention in Libya.

And people thought George W. Bush had too much power and used it too arrogantly.
The article below the dotted line was published on the National Interest’s blog this week. As you will note, I think events in Bahrain may yet present the United States with a great strategic disaster.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Qaddafi is a dictator and thats why the people took up guns against him, I suppose we will see a better Libya without Qaddafi atleast these people will have freedom.

Not our concern as Americans. The people of Libya can kill eachother to their heart's content. Why should American forces have to be utilized to deal with something that bares nothing on our national security paradigm and has no influence on our vested interests?

[Azmal]

What are thoughts on yet another interventional misadventure that the Obama administration is dragging Americans into? I am curious to see what the goals of this latest folly are? Save me the retort about a concern for human life. Americans have no obligation to go around the world saving everyone from each and every internicine conflict. Let the Libyans solve their own disputes:

"The 2009-10 slaughter of Shia Huthi tribesmen in Yemen by the U.S.-trained and/or -armed forces of Riyadh and Sanna reveals the Sunni regimes’ attitude toward Shia. In effect, Saudi Arabia and Yemen did to the Huthis what Gaddafi today is doing to Libyan rebels, though the Libyans are better armed.
--Question: Why the differing U.S. and Western reactions to the two events?
--Answer: (a) Washington needs Saudi oil and Riyadh’s purchases of U.S. debt, and (b) Washington and its allies need Salih's regime to fight al-Qaeda in Yemen. In short, A + B = Destruction of the Huthi minority with the silent acquiescence -- nay, silent approval -- of the virtuous Western advocates of freedom strugglers in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia."

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...all-fears-5032

Staff Message:

Post edited: Please refrain from using personal epithets!

I think everyone knows that America 's primary objective is to diversify markets and economies with the view to supporting liberal Democratic movements and individuals to complement it? ?For all you people who fear America 's current international assertiveness, I don't blame you for concluding them as another nation of "colonialists" or "imperialists". After all, no power in the history of mankind has ever acted to secure its interest while also benefiting those they touch. ?Why? ?Because the Americans appreciate the fact that the subjugation of a people and the denial of their freedom will always lead to a gradual rebellion. ?This is why they sought to invest in helping lands like South Korea , Japan , Taiwan , France , Germany , Britain , etc... to rise from their cultures of mass protectionism and limited freedoms. The first two world wars were primarily a result of gross economic protectionism, fuelled by illiberal regimes. By giving these nations a hand, the Americans profited a great deal. Given this, why would they want to resort to failed colonialisms and imperialisms in order to reap the rewards? Why would they want to persue policies that would grossly contradict their own realities back home? ?Aren't you not aware that the US currently has military bases in over 140 nations on Earth? ?Do you feel that all these nations are colonized because of this? ?Why would you suppose nations like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan would seek to compete for American bases on their soil? ?Did they seek from colonialist Russia to invade them as they're now doing with America? What you can't bring yourselves to recognize is why the US has in the past supported the Soherto's, the Contras?, the Shah of Iran, the Zia-ul-Haqs, the Abdullah Saly or the Saudi royals of the world. ?Yet if you'd bother to delve into each and every country the US stands accused of having supported the unsavoury, you'll realize that all these nations shared an absence of a large-scale drive towards liberal democracies, while threatened by Socialism, and or alQaydi/Talibanism a far greater evil.

ps: Remember that these centrally planed, useless national nothings had traumatised the world before naturally entering their own graves.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I think everyone knows that America 's primary objective is to diversify markets and economies with the view to supporting liberal Democratic movements and individuals to complement it? ?For all you people who fear America 's current international assertiveness, I don't blame you for concluding them as another nation of "colonialists" or "imperialists". After all, no power in the history of mankind has ever acted to secure its interest while also benefiting those they touch. ?Why? ?Because the Americans appreciate the fact that the subjugation of a people and the denial of their freedom will always lead to a gradual rebellion. ?This is why they sought to invest in helping lands like South Korea , Japan , Taiwan , France , Germany , Britain , etc... to rise from their cultures of mass protectionism and limited freedoms. The first two world wars were primarily a result of gross economic protectionism, fuelled by illiberal regimes. By giving these nations a hand, the Americans profited a great deal. Given this, why would they want to resort to failed colonialisms and imperialisms in order to reap the rewards? Why would they want to persue policies that would grossly contradict their own realities back home? ?Aren't you not aware that the US currently has military bases in over 140 nations on Earth? ?Do you feel that all these nations are colonized because of this? ?Why would you suppose nations like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan would seek to compete for American bases on their soil? ?Did they seek from colonialist Russia to invade them as they're now doing with America? What you can't bring yourselves to recognize is why the US has in the past supported the Soherto's, the Contras?, the Shah of Iran, the Zia-ul-Haqs, the Abdullah Saly or the Saudi royals of the world. ?Yet if you'd bother to delve into each and every country the US stands accused of having supported the unsavoury, you'll realize that all these nations shared an absence of a large-scale drive towards liberal democracies, while threatened by Socialism, and or alQaydi/Talibanism a far greater evil.

ps: Remember that these centrally planed, useless national nothings had traumatised the world before naturally entering their own graves.

You have absolutely no proof of your hypothesis. On the one hand you claim that the US invades out of benevolency and out of self gain, yet you ignore large swaths of history (like Lindberg's famous and popular insistence of America coming first and countering Roosevelt's demand for war). Yet you equate dictatorial regimes propped up by us, wanting bases in their backyards to further secure their regimes, as evidence that folks want to be invaded by the US? What sort of sick fantasy world do you live in?

And then you equate other tyrannies propped up by the US hand as somehow uninvadable because the US recognizes that they are not beneficial (completely ignoring the reason why we support Saudi and Bahrain in the first place).

Regarding the comparisons of Germany and Afghanistan (a complete ruse you attempt to push), you forget that you contradict yourself. On the one hand you differentiate the aforementioned nations like Germany, Britian, and Japan and then set these aside from the Saudi tyranny. Yet how in the world do you collectively heap Afghanistan with the former group (wishful thinking on your part) when they more obviously had governments in the past grouped with the latter?

The Cato institute has disowned any comparison with Germany whatsoever:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3870

Staff Message:

Post edited: Please refrain from using personal epithets!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...ichael-scheuer

[faye]

good to see your true colours coming out there, b. a.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

good to see your true colours coming out there, b. a.

Always a pleasure Faye, after all, we installed the Howard Democracy in your neck of the woods... wasn't that fun?

[faye]

only the howard.?....what clever chaps. not bad for puppets of zion.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

only the howard.?....what clever chaps. not bad for puppets of zion.

We wont admit to the rest... but our signature is definitly all over them.

[faye]

so, are these the kind of things that make you proud? these manipulations, these power plays, distorting truths etc etc? is this what you get off on, that makes your ego swell with pride? if so, good luck to ya, kid.