Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hypocrisy off the charts with foreign intervention in Libya
QMI Agency ^ | April 10, 2011 | Mercedes Stephenson

Posted on 04/10/2011 4:43:32 AM PDT by rickmichaels

The first rule in warfare is aim. Target selected, target engaged, target destroyed.

The same rules of selecting and maintaining a clear aim apply when the military is sent on humanitarian missions.

For example, we are going to Libya to remove a dictator who is killing pro-democracy demonstrators.

An example of how to miss the mark? We are going to Libya to bomb stuff, but we surely are not there to remove the illegitimate and flamboyantly dressed leader. Because regime change is bad. Very bad. We wouldn’t dream of it.

The hypocrisy meter is off the charts.

Bombing Gadhafi was not going to result in an iron-fisted dictator suddenly seeing the light and forming a semi-democratic coalition government with the rebels in a deeply divided, tribal Libya.

Hence, we are seeing the stalemate American generals and analysts warned of now developing.

NATO bombed Gadhafi just enough to push him back into his strongholds in the country, but not enough to shake him from power.

It’s depressing to listen to the mainstream media celebrate the NATO successes as Gadhafi moved west. What was celebrated as a rebel advance was actually a clearly calculated strategic manoeuvre by Gadhafi. He was pulling back into lands where he had tribal support.

He was also burying his tanks in civilian areas where he knew NATO couldn’t strike them effectively, next to hospitals and schools. Gadhafi may be many things including a war criminal, fashion criminal and a lunatic, but he’s not stupid.

Meanwhile, no one was thinking ahead. There was no plan in place to figure out who the rebels were and train them properly. There was no plan to identify leadership within rebel forces and prepare those leaders to take over.

There was also no effort to identify people inside Gadhafi’s regime who were sympathetic to the rebel forces. Those close to Gadhafi who could have been brought over ended up defecting and leaving, instead of staying and switching sides. A huge strategic blunder.

The lack of organization within resistance forces leaves chaos, inviting “flickers” of al-Qaida who are trying to exploit the situation.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we should have taken Gadhafi out. When a guy is strafing his own unarmed civilian population with his air force, I don’t have a problem saying he needs to go.

If you’re going to deploy fighter jets with bombs, you need to be extremely clear on why you are dropping those bombs. A lack of clarity in military missions is deadly. It costs lives.

Quite frankly, humanitarian missions conducted purely by dropping bombs from 10,000 feet don’t work.

But that was all the UN was willing to risk.

When the UN declared a no-fly zone and arms embargo, it was a huge eye roller. No-fly zone is UN code for “we’re going to make it look like we’re doing something important, but we don’t actually want to get our hands dirty.”

The fact the UN couldn’t bring itself to do something real or even say Gadhafi needed to go is symptomatic of why the Libyan mission is in huge trouble. The UN, an alleged bastion of human rights and responsibility-to-protect principles, can’t bring themselves to publicly denounce a guy who uses fighter jets to kill people demonstrating peacefully for democracy.

The U.S. was essentially pinned. Barack Obama watched what happened to George Bush when he went into Muslim lands without international sanctioning and was unwilling to touch that hornet’s nest with a 10-foot pole. It was the UN or bust.

In the meantime, the international community will continue to pretend that taking out 30% of Gadhafi’s forces is a victory and move on to the next news story. I was terrible at high school math, but even I know 30% isn’t a pass.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; flustercluck; gadhafi; libya; presidentbush; un; unjustwar; warofchoice

1 posted on 04/10/2011 4:43:34 AM PDT by rickmichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels
CATO, gibberish
2 posted on 04/10/2011 4:50:24 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

“CATO gibberish.”

I thought the article was well written and made the point if you’re going in, go in with a clear goal and a plan. I looked up CATO. This is from their webite.

About Cato
“The Cato Institute is the foremost upholder of the idea of liberty in the nation that is the foremost upholder of the idea of liberty.” - George F. Will

“If you’re looking for a consistent commitment to preserving all forms of individual liberty, join the Cato Institute.” - Wendy Kaminer, The American Prospect

“Cato is now the hot policy shop, respected for not compromising its core beliefs even when they get in the way of practical politics.” - Washington Post

3 posted on 04/10/2011 5:02:23 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

So you don’t give a damn, if kicking the kid is right are wrong, it is just did you kick him properly and to the best of your ability.

4 posted on 04/10/2011 5:10:34 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

“So you don’t give a damn, if kicking the kid is right are wrong, it is just did you kick him properly and to the best of your ability.”

The United States should be neither cop nor bully. The President should act in the United States’ interest first and foremost. If the President had identified a clear American interest in Libya, then the President should take whatever action he (or she) deems necessary to protect that interest. I believe that the author has said that there was no such interest. The author adds, but if you’re going to take action, make whatever action you are going to take clear.

It’s a Presidential judgment call whether a sovereign leader killing his own people is something the United States should take direct action on. In the past those actions have mostly been behind the scenes by helping out whatever side is being downtrodden. No matter which path the President takes, it is fraught with danger and unintended consequences.

My off-the-cuff response is that Reagan should have kept after Libya until the dictator was dead or deposed. But Reagan prioritized differently. Also, it’s quite possible that what you get when you kill the leader is somebody even worse.

My impression is that President Obama thought all he had to do was make his will known and the “right stuff” would happen. As of now, we’re expending millions of dollars a day not to achieve regime change. What a way to waste away America’s strength.

5 posted on 04/10/2011 5:41:23 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rickmichaels
>>>>>>>The hypocrisy meter is off the charts. <<<<<<<<

Indeed, but because of the the fake claims made in this article.

Refuting each of them would take several pages.

Take for example this: Nato forced MiG fighter jet belonging to AQ rebels to land, while NATO destroyed Libyan Galeb training jet ON the ground.

Or this: Gunship flown by AQ rebels was allowed to be airborne until shot down by Libyan forces. No fly zone, but not for AQ.

The claims that Libyan jets bombed civilians ring hollow. Civilians do not have tanks, gunships and fighter jets.

6 posted on 04/10/2011 9:28:41 AM PDT by DTA (CENTCOM vs. AFRICOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson