Skip to comments.Did We Give Up on Libya?
Posted on 04/07/2011 4:33:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Obama has announced that America would stop attacking Col. Muammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya. He instead hopes that others can force out Gadhafi -- or that the dictator will leave through economic and diplomatic pressure.
It will apparently be up to NATO to finish the war -- without direct American combat participation. The relieved Obama administration had never quite explained what the mission was in the first place -- or for whom and for what we were fighting. Was the bombing to stop the killing, to help the rebels, to remove Gadhafi, or to aid the British and French, who both have considerable oil interests in Libya?
Were we enforcing just a no-fly zone, establishing a sort of no-fly zone with occasional attacks on ground targets, or secretly sending in American operatives on the ground to work with rebels? Did the Obama administration go well beyond the Arab League and United Nations resolutions by trying to target Gadhafi for a while and ensure that the rebels won? If so, did anyone care? Was the administration ever going to ask for congressional approval -- at a time when we are running a $1.6 trillion annual budget deficit and have about 150,000 troops committed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Was Libya a greater threat to our national security than Syria or Iran, or a greater humanitarian crisis than the Congo or Ivory Coast? Are our new allies, the rebels, Westernized reformers, Islamists, or both -- or neither?
The abrupt abandonment of hostilities after about two weeks has set an American military precedent. True, the United States once lost a big war in Vietnam. It also decided not to finish a war with Islamic terrorists in 1983 after Hezbollah operatives blew up 241 U.S. military personnel in their Beirut barracks. In 1993, a few months after the "Black Hawk Down" mess in Mogadishu, President Clinton quietly withdrew American troops from Somalia.
In the past, the United States has also agreed to conditions short of full victory, as with the 1953 armistice with the North Koreans that has left the Korean peninsula divided to this day. Bill Clinton also ordered missile attacks in retaliation for terrorist attacks on Americans -- both in Afghanistan and Sudan -- without much follow-up. Yet in no prior military engagement against a nation-state has the United States simply announced that it was arbitrarily and unilaterally going to stop fighting after an initial two weeks of combat operations.
I would not count on the ready departure of Gadhafi or his family.
In 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat struck back at Libyan provocations and almost invaded the country. Egypt's massive army could have smashed the Libyan military and easily removed Gadhafi, but Egypt was talked out of the war at the last minute by concerned Arab nations.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered a strike against Tripoli aimed at Gadhafi himself -- who may have been warned ahead of time of the impending attack and escaped. Reagan gave up on further missions against Gadhafi.
Gadhafi fought and lost a decade-long war against Chad from 1978 to 1987. Yet despite thousands of dead and wounded Libyans, the defeat did not endanger Gadhafi's hold on power.
During his 42-year reign, Gadhafi has sent troops to help out the monstrous Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, blown up passenger jets, supported Slobodan Milosevic in the Balkan wars, ordered assassinations abroad, masterminded terrorist plots -- and always survived by using his vast petroleum fortunes to buy reprieves.
Unlike pro-Western strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt who simply left when protests mounted, Gadhafi is perfectly willing to kill thousands of his own people to retain power. After all, he is a totalitarian outlaw with nowhere to go. Usually, such monsters do not abdicate unless they are yanked out by American ground troops -- as in Grenada, Iraq and Panama -- or bombed relentlessly for weeks on end, as in the case of the NATO campaign against Milosevic.
Sanctions and pariah status usually do not matter much to brutal dictators like Gadhafi -- as the longevity of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il or Cuba's Fidel Castro attests.
In our defense, we can say that Gadhafi's removal was properly a European task. We can even agree that President Obama acted precipitously, without a clear-cut mission, strategy or desired outcome -- and without majority support of either Congress or the American people.
Yes, we can say all that. But if Gadhafi or his family survives in power after the United States simply got tired and quit, we will also be able to say that this sort of defeat is something quite new in American history.
Personally I think someone should terminate K-Daffy and then just walk away. I don’t care about who comes in and strips the government apart, its just all about payback.
We should NEVER have gotten involved in the first place.
Exactly. We have no business there
We did not LOSE in Vietnam. We LEFT. There is a big difference!
Was the bombing to stop the killing...
I thought it was to stop the threat of killing.
Were we enforcing just a no-fly zone, establishing a sort of no-fly zone...
Hard to enforce something which does not exist. Wasn't the excuse for dropping a Billion dollars worth of bombs the first day that we had to establish said no-fly zone?
We had no right and no business attacking Libya.
I think Obama thought he would climb in the polls but we still dont know who the rebels are..his muslim brothers probably put pressure on him to help the rebels
But NATO is a convenient LIE IT was formed and is maintained as a means for the US to maintain control over military operations that it wants to maintain control over as a stepping stone to full UN participation. As the 0 waited for the UN to begin the call for war against Libya.(and we really have not been in any military operation without the consent of the UN since Korea) IMO this NATO transfer is a convenient way to beguile the American people once again. The plausible deniability of the Offal Oriface (as it was changed to be) is the hope that Americans will not recoginze our entanglement as any continueing problem initiated by the 0.
Os initial nerve wracking dithering, misinformation, wanton disregard for the interests of US allies, etc. followed by the illicit, half-as*& commitment and faux rationale supporting it, is a course which could be conceived and initiated ONLY by an ill-informed, inexperienced, politically and diplomatically gutless and anti-American LIBERAL a LIBERAL by the way, positively groomed to DO nothing more or better!!!
If you had an expectation of anything more or better or if you expected behavior and action at least consistent with US diplomatic tradition and American interests shame on you!
The US is always the Supreme command of NATO, so no matter what 0bama says, the US will always be involved
We should NEVER have gotten involved in the first place.
This bears repeating.
I astonishes me how many people cannot see that truth.
It certainly does.
“We did not LOSE in Vietnam. We LEFT. There is a big difference!”
What is the difference between leaving (retreating) and losing, please explain?
Certainly, the US military was not defeated on the battlefield, but our retreat left the enemy with stretegic and tactical control of the battlefield. Been a while since I read Claustwitz, but this is defeat.
“Attacking” the will of our politicians and people to continue the fight is a viable military strategy - and it worked.
I lost a cousin in Vietnam and it pains me to consider that he died for no good reason, but we did lose.
I can not think of a time in history this was done before.
This letter should be recognized as the most influential peace proposal ever in the history of the world.
Private sector middle class America is out of work, foreclosed, bankrupt, hours cut, no medical insurance and the country is completely over run with American hating foreigners and illegal aliens on welfare..
And we're supposed to care about Libya?