Aren't you Precious.
For those who support FR, click here to show it!
For the perpetually offended, click here instead.
Posted on 10/21/2011 9:55:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
That's certainly what the White House would like people to think. Much of the media seems to agree, at least in some degree. The New York Times says that the video of a beaten Moammar Qaddafi still alive at the time of his capture provided a “harrowing … vindication” of Barack Obama’s decision to push NATO into bombing Libya on behalf of the rebels:
For President Obama, the image of a bloodied Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi offers vindication, however harrowing, of his intervention in Libya, where a reluctant commander in chief put strict limits on American military engagement and let NATO allies take the lead in backing the rebels.
Mr. Obama’s carefully calibrated response infuriated critics on the right and left, who blamed him either for ceding American leadership in a foreign conflict or for blundering into another Arab land without an exit strategy.
But with Colonel Qaddafi joining the lengthening list of tyrants and terrorists dispatched during the Obama presidency, even critics conceded a success for Mr. Obama’s approach to war — one that relies on collective, rather than unilateral, action; on surgical strikes rather than massive troop deployments.
First, the US hasn’t gone to war unilaterally since Grenada. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were broadly collective military missions; Iraq had troops from dozens of countries on the ground in the invasion and in the later occupation. Second, there is a great deal of question about just how “surgical” the NATO strikes in Tripoli and other heavily populated areas actually were. We didn’t send troops, to be sure, but that allowed the fighting to continue for months on end — and Obama just sent 100 troops to Uganda as “advisors” in their civil war on behalf of a government that hasn’t held a fair election since the ruling junta seized power in 1986.
ABC is concerned that the war’s “success” will erode the War Powers Act that Obama completely ignored:
Does the success of the operation against Gadhafi change the minds of those who believe the War Powers Act was violated when the president did not seek congressional authorization for the deployment of military force? Not so much.
For supporters of the law the president still needed congressional authorization to continue operations 60 days after the deployment.
“The academics will debate this, but this will just further erode the War Powers Act,” says professor Sarah Kreps of Cornell University. “Congress had little leverage on what the president did.”
Both of these reports start from a perspective that the war actually improved matters in Libya. However, that assumes facts not in evidence. Getting rid of Qaddafi is only a success if what follows Qaddafi isn’t either another bloody tyrant, or worse, a terrorist regime ready to export radical Islamic jihad across North Africa and beyond. NATO hopes that its intervention on behalf of the rebels will strengthen the democrats against the extremists, but one look at the mob that killed Qaddafi yesterday shows that the rebel forces aren’t high on discipline or the rule of law at the moment. Since eastern Libya has long been a recruiting zone for al-Qaeda and other salafist terror groups, it’s not at all certain that NATO’s lack of boots on the ground will translate into influence, let alone success.
To paraphrase Winston Wolf in Pulp Fiction, it’s a little early to be patting each others’ backs, and it may not even matter a lot who or what replaces Qaddafi in terms of long-term security. My colleague at the Week, Daniel Larison, writes today that the long-term ramifications of the Libyan adventure will be a disaster for the West:
Contrary to the hope that Libya would provide a deterrent to regime violence elsewhere, the political fallout from the war has stalled any international response to Syria’s crackdown. By exceeding the U.N. mandate they received in March, the U.S. and its allies have poisoned emerging democratic powers such as India and Brazil against taking any action in other countries. Libya has confirmed every skeptic’s worst fears that in practice, the “responsibility to protect” is little more than a pretext for toppling vulnerable governments.
Equally troubling from an American perspective is the ease with which the current administration launched a war against a government that had abandoned its former hostility, renounced unconventional weapons and terrorism, and provided some degree of security cooperation to the U.S. Pariah states now have no incentive to negotiate similar deals with the U.S. and its allies, and they have clear incentives to acquire the means of deterring a future intervention. This reduces diplomatic and political options in coping with these states in the future and makes conflicts with some of them more likely.
Larison looks to recent history to predict the outcome of the successful rebellion in Libya:
When dictatorships are violently overthrown, their successor regimes tend to devolve into some form of authoritarian government. Political culture, weak institutions, and post-conflict disorder all make it unlikely that Libya will be that much freer in the years to come than it was under Gadhafi. As in Iraq, it is questionable whether the possible gains will be worth the real losses that have already been and will continue to be suffered. As in Kosovo, which is often wrongly held up as a model of “successful” intervention, the post-war regime is liable to be criminal and corrupt. Twenty years ago, the liberation of Eritrea and Ethiopia from the brutal dictatorship of Mengistu was an inspiring story that very soon degenerated into authoritarianism and war. There is no reason to think that Libya’s story will be all that different.
No, and the fact remains — as Larison points out — that we have fewer options in dealing with Syria, which represented more of a threat to Western interests than did Libya at the time, or Uganda now. The jury is still out on this adventure, and there is ample reason to believe we will regret our intervention in the long run.
Update: My friend John Noonan reminded me on Twitter of the parable of the Zen master:
We’ll see.
You mean like when we got Saddam in late 2003 ?
Maybe I will wait to see how chapter 2 goes...
Precisely. A big win for globalist intermeddlers and jihadists, and confirmation of NATO’s role as an assassins’ guild.
For those who support FR, click here to show it!
Obama endorsed supported and fought for the new Libyan Govt.
Said govt. forces and Obama violated numerous International and American laws combined yesterday and in the past :
1907 Hague IV Annex
1949 Geneva Conventions
18 USC § 2441
War Powers Act
Obama and the Libyan Govt. are war criminals .
PS: Dear Leader stood on the White House lawn yesterday and ENDORSED torture and street executions.
BTW, he also thinks splashing water on someone`s face is torture and an abomination
Consider:
Bush’s “regime change” in Iraq was two wars, not one.
The first was a “hyperwar” to remove Saddam from power. That took about a week, was extremely efficient and effective. Mission accomplished.
The second was filling the power vacuum. This is what took 10 years with an unsatisfying end. Installing a new leadership and supporting bureaucracy is terribly difficult, even without violent competing forces fighting to drive you out and take control.
The Obama will face the same.
Gaddafi’s end was not hard, insofar as the Obama had anything to do with his deposal.
The subsequent power vacuum now needs filling, he has no US-friendly plan for filling it, and lacking immediate and decisive action to install new leadership the country will be taken over by a new brutal theocracy if not dictatorship.
Credit where due, if any. Whatever the Obama did re: Libya, Daffy was removed. Kudos. Destruction is easy, construction is hard; walking away from creating a vacuum will not see favorable recordings in history.
Let's wait to see how many Christian churches are burned. That's been our chief achievement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maybe we should wait and ask the women who are teaching, working in government, getting educations, walking around without covering their faces. Those days are most likely over. Any non Muslims living in Libya should get out while they can.
“Does Qaddafi’s death make the Libyan war a success?
Let’s wait to see how many Christian churches are burned. That’s been our chief achievement in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Better yet, let’s just wait till commercial jets start getting shot out of the sky with a few of the thousands of shoulder fired missiles that were robbed from the colonel’s arsenal.
Idiot Obama never even thought of those consequences, or maybe he did!
“We didn’t send troops, to be sure”
I thought I saw reports of troops on the ground. Snipers, people directing bombardments and other duties.
With all ‘arab’ nations in revolt and after the smoke clears we’ll see that our sharia and koran clutching camel jockeys have won. We’ve lost yet again!
Goodbye Obama!
LLS
Yes it does. 3 down, a few more to go...
Why might not the author of gunwalker/fast and furious come up with a plan wherein those missiles somehow make it to America, planes start falling out of the sky and various other things blow up, and martial law MUST be declared to get it all under control? Fast and furious was stupid to a degree that cannot be exceeded. What I have posited CANNOT transcend it.
The following is excerpted from my response (to 47 previous) posts on a different thread.
“Evidently, ALL the FReepers who have responded so far know more than the two retired Army officers (with very specific channels and information) who advise Fox News and Bill O’Reilly. Last night they expressed the thought that Obama deserved some credit for the conclusion (Quadaffi’s death). They disagreed with some of the aspects of that operation, but felt, on balance, that it was the proper course for Obama to decide upon.
To me, to be so blinded by unwillingness to see anything other than what one wants to see is to ensure self-deception, wrong actions, and absolutely undesirable outcomes.
And, surely, those people who may be/are yet to be persuaded to vote for the eventual Republican candidate (without which we will not win in Nov 2012) see this kind of reflexive acrimony and shake their heads at the mindlessness.
I mean, even Hitler caused the creation of the Volkswagen, and Mussolini made the trains run on time (no small trick in Italy, then).
So, can we not maybe take a breath, think a little, and speak truth so that our words are not totally ignored, or worse, ridiculed. And acted upon—in the opposite.
My thoughts, anyway.”
I found your post—while Spartan and somewhat grudging—to be accurate and a fair summation. Thanks.
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.