« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Tale of the Tape: President Bush’s War in Iraq vs. President Obama’s Kinetic Military Action in Libya

You had to know this was coming, didn\'t you?

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  April 1st, 2011 at 10:15 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

For Installment II in our very occasional “Tale of the Tape” series (click here for Installment I), here’s a quick, down-and-dirty comparison of the two wars to date.

But first, this video really sums all of this up better than I ever could:

Tale of the Tape:

.

Iraq

Libya
Name of Operation Operation Iraqi Freedom Operation Odyssey Dawn (Changed to “Operation Unified Protector” once the original U.S.-led coalition handed off operational control to NATO, another U.S. led coalition)
Connotation of Name Freedom for Iraqis, duh OOD: I’m really not sure. Something about an enigmatic sunrise?

OUP: Probably sending the message that this U.S.-led coalition is unified, unlike the U.S.-led coalition that handed the mission off to it. But that’s just a guess.
Commander in Chief George Walker Bush Barack Hussein Obama
Objective Regime Change Nobody really seems sure, including the President. Perhaps regime change, though the administration has expressly ruled out using our military, already engaged there, for that
Target Saddam Hussein’s regime and military forces who remain loyal to him Originally, Qaddafi’s Air Force and air defenses. Then, his armor and troops as well. Finally, as of 3/31, those who are fighting against Qaddafi, as well
Rationale for War Iraq’s status as a state sponsor of terror, Saddam Hussein’s history of terrorism and genocide, including use of Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people Preventing a “humanitarian disaster” in another country’s civil war
Date the President Addressed the American People about the rationale for war and our objectives March 19, 2003, from the Oval Office (after a March 17 speech giving Saddam & sons 48 hours to leave Iraq to avert war, after the famous “Axis of Evil” State of the Union speech in which he laid out a case against Iraq) Does the off-site March 28 speech which addressed the former but completely ignored the latter count?
Date offensive operations began March 19, 2003 March 19, 2011
Initial Phase of War
 “Shock and Awe” Establishing a No-Fly Zone and DON’T CALL IT A WAR!
Size of Coalition 49 nations 5 initially; with full NATO involvement, plus the mysterious “Arab Partners” (read: UAE & Qatar), that number becomes 30
Conventional wisdom on the coalition The U.S. is acting unilaterally! Utterly brilliant – particularly those “Arab Partners”
Relevant Congressional Resolutions H.J. Res. 114 (passed 296-133 in House; 77-23 in Senate), authorizing President Bush to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” None. The U.S. Congress has not yet been consulted about this military action.
Relevant UN Resolution(s) UNSCR 1441, warning of “serious consequences” if regime was not forthcoming about weapons stockpiles; also, 17 previous UN resolutions whose violation the Iraqi regime had flaunted UNSCR 1973, which authorized all necessary force to protect civilians in Libya except for the insertion of ground forces
UN Vote on Key Resolution
 15-0 Resolution passed 10-0, only because Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil abstained from voting
Other military operations ongoing at the time Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan Unfinished operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as tsunami relief operations in Japan
Military commitment
 Said “This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome except victory,” and integrated ground and air campaigns in support of the mission’s objective Employed standoff weaponry (air power and TLAMs) and unsupported OGA/SOF personnel.  Maintained an express commitment not to insert ground troops nor to bring about regime change militarily
Involvement of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations
 Al Qaeda fighters streamed into Iraq from outside its borders, where they carried out some successful terrorist attacks before being turned on by Iraqis and demolished by coalition troops Interestingly, al Qaeda appears to be on the side we’re helping.
Method of Bringing About Regime Change Combined air, land, and sea-based military invasion Hope
Dennis Kucinich’s reaction Impeach! Impeach!

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • antisocial

    Heartbroken.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      Well played.

      • SoFiMil

        .

    • http://twitter.com/biggator5 BigGator5

      ….

  • SoFiMil

    Well reasoned (and amusing) diary, Jeff.

    The date for the beginning of military operations beginning was interesting. I did not know that. Likely a coincidence, but eye-catching interesting. (Not saying your’re saying there’s anything more, either.)

    John Kerry will be pleased to know that Poland is not a member of Obama’s “coalition.”

    • SoFiMil

      …I’ll get you next time, Gadget!!!

  • hunter10

    Even liberals should be able to understand the difference. Well maybe.

  • northernrockiesguy

    My first thought……great name for a condom.

  • renny

    I think this whole deal is putting the US treasure further in debt, military men and women in danger, and the nation’s world position in another tank just so next year o’s hatchetmen can claim he has “commander in chief street creds.” To Dems. and libs., we are all just a game.

  • spainishirish

    I’ve been here long enough that people know I’m not a conspiracy freak, Black Helicopter-type of guy. So I think I am entitled to ask: is there any way the president did not know the rebels were composed of, at least in part, jihadists from al-Qaeda and so forth? I know the CIA hasn’t been a shining example of good work in the last few decades, but they have been heavily involved in the detection of Islamists in other places, and were on the ground here–we now know to no one’s surprise–for weeks. While it isn’t impossible the operatives missed the jihadists around them, it is highly unlikely.

    This leaves two possibilities as I see it. First, the president was clueless and not informed. Possible, but again unlikely. The second is that the president didn’t care. That’s where my money is. If I go into speculation about why he didn’t care, I might get tagged wrongly as a conspiracy freak but I have some deep suspicions as I’m sure many others here and across the nation do. Suffice it to say Obama is delusional enough to believe his wit and charm could help make nice-nice with al-Qaeda.

    Obama’s narcissism is cloying enough under normal circumstances. When it leads him to assist and even consider arming monsters who have killed American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a real problem on our hands.

    • The_Gadfly

      was a radicalized jihadist…..

      I’d have to say ‘yes’ but not because it is a logical-thoughtful conclusion, just an experimental one. Unfortunately, that would still hold even if the CIA were fully informed about the ground situation.

  • Next93

    It’s starting to look like the “rebels” (most of whom where probably Gadaffi’s local enforcers as recently as last month) have the military accumen of lint. No coordination, no strategy, and tactics limited to “kill what’s in front of me”.

    So, we start by eliminating Gadaffi’s air power, then we progress to taking out his armor, next step is to provide the “rebels” with arms. What happens if when it becomes clear that arming the rabble isn’t going to enable it to win against a coordinated military force, even one stripped of air and armor?

    Are we going to let Gadaffi hold on to power? Not bloody likely. Let’s face it, at this point we’re committerd to regime change whether the Boy President is willing to use that term or not. We already have the CIA and SOF in-country. So so what’s next? Do we progress to sending in advisors, then “advisors in force?”

    How many times do Democrat presidents need to learn the lesson that push-button war is not the answer?

  • renny

    Nothing he says has a relation to what he does, as he does not believe in the meaning of words and uses them for whatever advantage of shield they give him for whatever it is he wants to do in the first place.

    That’t not a conspiracy theory but a philosophical take.

  • silkywiley

    I didn’t want Bush to go into Iraq, having met Iraqi in Europe during the first gulf war, I knew that the propaganda about the people treating us as liberators was bunk. But once in, I supported victory.

    I feel the same about this “kinetic military action”. I have read what the rebellion leaders have to say and I am willing to take them at their word. They state that they are not radical Islamist and that they want a free country. I am not going to be so cynical as to dismiss everything about this situation as illigtimate just because big ole’ Hilary and Obama are in charge. Also I want support for our boys who are in this fight, be they in the air or in “slippers” on the ground.

    So Obama is a stumble bum, even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then. So I’m for victory. I’m also for people all over the world gaining freedom. We waste so much money in this government, lets spend a few bucks on something we claim to support, people yearning to be free.

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      Would you mind defining it?

      • silkywiley

        Daffy out of power, ensconsed in a villa down with Chavez, his son’s basking in the night life in Europe and a transition government in place drawing up a constitution and preparing for elections. The results of those elections are in the hands of the Libyans. If they decide to put a Sharia yoke on their necks, so be it. If that is the outcome, then US poiticians and boys in the White House with toys may finally give up on this middle east quagmire and start drill here, drill now and put some military effort into cleaning up the war (drug) lords in Mexico, a war that is spilling into this country daily in cities with murder, chaos, huge expense in social services, police and judiciary and dissolution of our peaceful civil society.

        • spainishirish

          constitutes victory, I really need to read more.

        • silkywiley

          The terror brought about in the west by the thought of a Caliphate in the middle east is misplaced. If all these countries go to Islamists and Sharia law, there will be even less to fear from the middle east. As soon as a Caliphate (Sunni) is set up they will go to war with the Shia who know that the Sunni and their harridan Aisha poisoned Mohammad and killed twelve of his direct descendents. The great and distant Satan will hold little interest as the middle east devolves into their most interesting conflict. If the mullahs and Ayatollahs withhold their oil from the west it could be a great boon. We might leave them and their oil for more productive development of our own resources, we might have to bury a few environmentalist, but I am so tired of these boys in bike pants, they are the American counterpart to the Islamic fascists. They are likely driven by the same impulses, twisted repressed sexuality and the impulse to piety. I don’t care how we get rid of them surely the whole country is tired of their puritanical hysteria by now.

          Remember, the Lord works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

          • spainishirish

            While I am familiar with the tension between Shia and Sunni, I’m not aware of any economists–even a Krugman clone–who believes an immediate cessation of the Middle East oil supply would be a boon. Further, to expand a bit on history, the Caliph is mandated to engage in jihad against the infidel. And while bicyclists get on my nerves at times, I haven’t seen many wearing suicide belts under their spandex.

          • silkywiley

            is that I don’t drink at all. Did I say immediate cessation? After getting RedState for a time now, I can see that it’s inside baseball for a particular group. I’ve decided to cancel my subscription, I don’t need to waste my mornings getting insulted anyway.

  • rightwingmom52
    • silkywiley

      Forgive my ignorance by I don’t know what “nt” often on this thread means. Please enlighten.

      • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

        mean either.

        I can help with half of that: “nt” means “no text.” As in, the comment title is the only text to that comment; there isn’t any in the body.

        • silkywiley

          Nasty

  • thebardofmurdock

    For those who study history
    And military strategy,
    A new approach to waging war
    In ways that were untried before,
    Is rarely seen or heard:
    The old ways are preferred.

    But in these times of global strife,
    With sounds of drum and notes of fife,
    A new man joins the hall of fame
    Of leaders who receive acclaim,
    For strategy in war,
    Too brilliant to ignore.

    With Hannibal, Napoleon,
    And Kahn, the great Mongolian,
    With Brennus and with Pericles
    With Sun Tzu and Eurybiades,
    Our President does share
    A real strategic flair.

    He joins in war, almost too late,
    Makes public his withdrawal date,
    Commences action from the air,
    Then makes his enemies aware
    He?ll not attack on land,
    Across the desert sand.

    Within just days, perhaps a week,
    His reputation and mystique
    For managing the world?s affairs
    Achieves its peak when he declares
    He?ll bomb the rebels too,
    For things that they might do.

    Perhaps another Nobel Prize
    Our friends from Stockholm could reprise,
    For excellence in strategy
    While waging war on Tripoli.
    It?s merited, at worst,
    As much as was the first.

    thebardofmurdock.com

  • The_Gadfly

    I think you should add a footnote to the ‘Relevant Congressional Resolutions’ column. He did notify them of the operation as required by the War Powers Act. So contrary to some claims, he is in compliance with the War Powers Act regardless of whether or not he acknowledges its legitimacy.

    What you have written is true, and I believe is also fair. I think adding the note will elevate you to Beyond Reproach.

    A good comparison, and I look forward to watching the video when I get home from work and am on my own bandwidth for streaming. I expect it will be as entertaining as the Bernake, The Fed, and the QE2 YouTube video was.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    and actually do something…

    or is that asking to much?

    • SoFiMil

      Nothing unconstitutional about Obama going into Libya without consulting congress. Policy-wise there’s a whole lot wrong with it.

      But yes, if what you mean the left being consistently wrong about some supposed requirement to get congressional approval short of an actual declared war. (Looking at the subject title “hOpefully…”) — then all power to the left I say. I’d still insist conservatives vote no on any impeachment charges, while enjoying the popcorn.

  • bogornes

    I always opposed the Iraq invasion (while still hoping for success once it began), because I didn’t believe that the results would be worth the significant cost in lives and treasure (I still believe that). I think that Obama’s plan is completely haphazard, but he will not allow this “whatever it is” to escalate into a full-blown invasion/occupation.

  • http://billbotex.blogspot.com billbotex

    Jeff, Caleb said it might be possible to get a copy of the Iraq/Libya graphic file you created. He said it would be a large file (900 Mb). I would like to get a copy of your graphic file to put on my site, with a credit to your creation of the graphic.

    Please let me know if you can help me with that? Thanks

    My conservative blog: http://www.billbotex.blogspot.com