Oh No! Is This Going To Be Libya All Over Again???

As long as US citizens are the target of the bad guys -- wherever they are -- then America is,in essence, under attack. We have seen President Obama respond, just as he said he would. During the 2008 campaign, he was widely criticized for saying he would go into Pakistan uninvited if he had good intel that Osama was there. He did so, and the USA is a better place for it. No 12-year-old video game player could carry out that mission, of course.

 

Mmmm hmmmm.. Was invading Libya part of the "Obama Doctrine", too?

 

I must have missed the part where we "invaded" Libya. I recall that we joined the NATO forces at the behest of our allied nations,then took the lead when we realized we had the military capabilities that other countries did not,and that were acutely needed to prevent the Libyan dictator from killing more of his people, and possibly planning more attacks on Americans. In short, yes, the decision to join the effort with a minimal number of military personnel and at minimal cost was part of the Obama Doctrine.

 

This issue has been discussed before. The U.S. sent military forces into Libya. Our forces crossed the border of a sovereign nation in order to inflict harm and damage. You can call that an "invasion" if you'd like or a "Sunday stroll". Regardless, if being a hawk is the Obama Doctrine then it shows what little diplomacy the man possesses.

 

All the successes of the Obama Administration’s foreign policies in the brief time they have been in office and given all the crap they were handed in January of 2009 in the area of foreign policy, have to absolutely stick in your craw with the pain of a thousand white-hot suns. This guy knows how to accomplish foreign policy goals without involving us in protracted 10 year wars that have cost us trillions, bankrupted our economy, Killed and maimed 100's of thousands of people and only strengthened our enemies resolve to harm us. This has to just kill you so you find any way you can to marginalize the efforts, the outcomes, and the successes of this country. How un-American! I seriously doubt the Right will ever be trusted on foreign policy issues again in my lifetime and rightly so.

 

Two Years ago:

Sen. John McCain, visiting Libya this past week, praised Muammar Gaddafi for his peacemaking efforts in Africa. In addition, McCain called for the U.S. Congress to expand ties with Gaddafi's government, according to Libya's state news agency.
McCain had a face-to-face meeting with Gaddafi, which he detailed on his Twitter page with the following message:
Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya -- interesting meeting with an interesting man.
After once being designated a state sponsor of terrorism in the wake of the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, Libya has seen its diplomatic ties fully restored under the Bush Administration in return for dismantling its nascent nuclear program. Since then, Libya has been instrumental in securing peace deals between warring factions in Africa.

 

Moen -

Are you kidding me? Look, I am not saying Bush batted 1.000 in terms of foreign policy. Far from it. But Barack Obama has been absolutely abysmal when it comes to foreign policy. He has alienated allies (Britain), been weak with competitors (China and Russia), and made everyone just generally uneasy with his lack of leadership. We elected Barack Obama, in part, to be the cool kid in class to alleviate domestic pressures. His relationships with British, German, and French leadership is downright chilly. He made concessions to Russia that has gotten the US nothing. He has yet to address the Pakistan issue. He tried to marginalize Putin in 2009 by boosting Medevev, only for Putin to announce that he will be running for the Presidency again, so now another leader will be coming in with a chip on his shoulder, while simultaneously leaving Poland and Eastern Europe out to dry by abandoning them with regards to the missile shield. Now a Russia with better strategic position will get to be helmed by a former KGB officer with a grudge against Obama. Meanwhile in China, Obama has stopped pretty much all sales to Taiwan in an effort to appease China.

As for the Middle East, its a tad early to declare victory in any of those areas. Yeah, the old dictators have been disposed, but we don't know who is going to replace them. Egypt has been rioting against Christians, elections have been delayed, and its not exactly a lock that democracy will break out. And I am pretty sure that thousands of people died in Libya. They just weren't Americans. And you are right. It does kill me to have to say this. Because I genuinely needed Obama to succeed. Because more than party, I needed America to be successful, cause I am going to be living here for a while. But, in terms of foreign policy, he has revealed himself to be a small man on a big stage.

 

Actually, no. You seem to be consumed with the same desire that Obama has to inflict harm, destroy or kill our enemies. I prefer a diplomatic approach, when and if possible. Did Obama send an envoy to Libya? Did he even attempt diplomacy? Did he send Hillary Clinton to, at least, attempt to try to keep the peace? No, he didn't do any of those things. He attacked. And kept attacking to the tune of $1.1 billion dollars for the American taxpayers and countless Libyan lives. Do you think the Arab populace respects the U.S. more now that we've shown that we'll simply bomb their country, kill their people and "claim victory" in their country? If you do, well, I suppose you believe in the "Obama Doctrine".

 

I was actually sort of pleasant to have discussions here without your perpetual "you're crap" and "only I am right" BS. Why does it never occur to you that "they" are sometimes right and "we" are sometime wrong? That way we can discuss the pros and cons of a situation in place of trying to defend "us" from your attacks.

 

John-

I respectfully disagree but without specific examples of your assertions, it is hard to refute them. I mean you say that he alienated allies like the Brits, the Germans and the French but all you say is that the relationship is "chilly". It is really hard to prove that one way or the other. There is always tension between allies and that has never changed because they have competing interests even as allies. You blame the leadership situation in Russia on Obama but in reality what does Obama really have to do with it? I think at best your analysis of the Russian/Eastern Europe dynamic is speculation with a heavy dose hypercriticism. I have no idea how Obama stopped all sales to Taiwan or even if that is real or just some reinterpretation of the actual situation. I do know that if you go to this web site and look at the US/Taiwan trade over the last several years, it has only increased. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5830.html So I'm lost on what this claim is all about.
As far as the middle east goes, Obama has killed or captured more high level Al Qaeda opperatives than Bush ever dreamed of including:

There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May. Al Qaeda in the Ara­bian Penin­sula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki . Offi­cials con­firmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pak­istan oper­a­tions, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziris­tan, Pakistan. In August, ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed. In June, one of the group’s most dan­ger­ous com­man­ders, Ilyas Kash­miri, was killed in Pak­istan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior oper­a­tivesAmmar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Soma­lia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed. Admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials also her­ald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest ofYou­nis al-Mauritani in Quetta.
Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pak­istan leader Bait­ul­lah Mah­sud was killed in Pakistan. In Sep­tem­ber of that month, Jemayah Islamiya oper­a­tional plan­nerNoordin Muham­mad Top was killed in Indone­sia, and AQEA plan­nerSaleh Ali Saleh Nab­han was killed in Somalia. Just to name a few.

And today Obama announced and end to our involvement in Iraq. All troops will return home by the end of December 2011. Period! This wasn't his idea and he never voted for it but he did clean up Bush and Cheney's mess. Imagine what Obama could have accomplished if he hadn't spent so much time cleaning up the garbage from the previous incompetents.

We have dictators being overthrown by their own people not us coming in and occupying their country for years. This is smart foreign policy not the cowboy mentality of the Right. Saying that you want America to succeed isn't enough, you have to actually acknowledge our successes instead of minimizing them.

 

You want to try the diplomatic approach with terrorists? Seriously? OK. Good luck with getting either side of the political aisle to go along with that one. But as far as diplomacy goes, Obama's speech in Egypt is credited with ushering in the onset of the Arab Spring movement. Now that is some powerful diplomacy in my opinion. I guess you'd rather we lie about the reasons we attack a sovereign country that did not attack us and then change the reasons for the attack almost weekly when the last reason gets disproven. Obama lent air support to Libya to save innocent civilians from being slaughter by Gadhafi and that has not changed. Gadhafi is now gone and we lost not a single soldier. Gadhafi was asked to leave and he did refuse prior to any military action by us or our allies. You seem to forget this....conveniently.

 

Interesting complaint coming from you.

 

Why is everyone declaring victory on Egypt? There are riots, delayed elections, and a host of other problems there. And who, other than Mrs. Obama, credits President Obama's speech for the Arab Spring?!? Talk about American Hubris.

 

For the same reason Bush declared victory in Iraq when Saddam was driven from power. Granted no one is flying off to land on a carrier to make the proclamation, but the end of a ruthless dictator usually signals the beginning of the process of democracy. Besides, I don't know what you mean by "declaring victory". Who has actually used this term? Nobody I have heard has said such a thing.

 

The death of a dictator rarely means the beginning of a democracy. Historically the death of a dictator...means another dictator.

 

Well, since you are not my dad, I don't have to do anything. I don't recognize you as an expert on patriotism. I don't recognize me as an expert on patriotism. Also, call it a hunch, but I am guessing that anything Bush did that might be considered a win you probably minimized it.

I don't blame the Russian leadership situation on Obama. I blame Obama for shooting his mouth off about it and antagonizing Vladimir Putin for no apparent reason other than because he thought he could. The sales to taiwan was a typo. I meant weapon sales have been cut off.

As for the European leaders on Obama: Sarkozy has called Obama an "empty suit" on foreign policy and his position on Iran "insane." Merkel has been heavily critical of the US's financial policies.

Then there is England, the US's greatest ally. With the English, from day one he has done nothing but antagonize. He sent back a bust of Churchill that had been in the White House since 9/11 (sent as a signal by the UK that it would stand with the US), gave Brown and his family insulting gifts (From the English - a frame made from the HMS Resolute which led to the Special Relationship. Very thoughtful and poignant. From Obama - a collection of dvds and a dvd player...that doesn't work in England. For the queen, an iPod...of Obama's speeches. Really?!?!)

Then there is the concrete stuff. "In addition to the president not once referring to the "special relationship" in his speeches, failing to acknowledge British sacrifice in Afghanistan, and consistently refusing to meet with the Prime Minister, Obama's administration has refused to acknowledge British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (where 258 British soldiers died defending it in 1982), mocked the British press, and undermined British influence in NATO by apologizing to France. To top this barrage of insults off, Obama's State Department responded to criticism that the president was ignoring Britain by describing the president as "overwhelmed" and reminding the British that "[t]here's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.""

And based on the fact that you were unaware of most of these well reported international incidents, I am guessing that you are probably not in a position to estimate about how many high ranking Al-Qaeda operatives Bush killed in comparison to Obama. Yes, Obama got bin Laden. Bush got Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (head of al Qaeda Iraq). And bush got them in Iraq. As opposed to Pakistan, who is technically an ally. So lets not start anointing Obama the next George Marshall.

 

I don't know what you base that statement on. If one dictator kills the previous dictator, I can see your point, but when a dictator is killed by a people that are sick of the abuses of that dictator, I think the chances of getting another dictator in his place are unlikely. Not that it can't and hasn't happened in the past but you have to remember that this entire Arab Spring movement is about democracy for many of those participating. There are certainly many factions in any popular movement and the move towards democracy is always going to be messy but it doesn't begin until a tyrant is removed. Lest you forget, we have supported many of these dictators from Saddam to Qadhafi at one point or another so I can't blame these people if they are suspicious of us and our motives. I would be.

 

The hawk premise is erroneous, IMHO. President Obama doesn't run around seeking out despots to overthrow, and in fact has been roundly mocked by his critics for taking his time deciding where and when to commit US military assets. That thoughtful strategy is new to this country since the Bush doctrine dominated foreign policy. Our allies much prefer a thoughtful, strategic USA over a shoot-first-think-later approach.

Yes, I believe there is a great difference between "invasion" and "Sunday stroll." Words still have meanings.

 

Actually, that's a very interesting comment. I'm old enough to have first-hand experience with the Viet Nam era, but of course, the media was not particularly sophisticated when that "commitment" began, so what we as a people thought we knew was not always reality on the ground. As the conflict heated up, media involvement became commonplace and eventually the war unraveled because of the unrest at home.

It's interesting IMHO because the rationale for our involvement in central Africa is somewhat similar to the public face of our involvement in Viet Nam ... to stop the advance of the era's bad guys.

 

I agree with this, although methinks the American people have far too short of a memory span to completely discount the possibility of trusting the GOP on foreign affairs again. I am a huge fan of Obama's approach to foreign policy and admire his restraint in the face of what seems to be endless around-the-clock yammering of pundits and bloggers who mock him if he holds back and deride him when he takes action. He's using his brain, not his politics, to decide when, where and how much American military might will be sent out into the world. Like it or not, we are still the best equipped and best prepared military force in the world and we have a duty to keep the peace, IMHO.