« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Barack Herbert Walker Obama?

That's not a compliment, by the way.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  March 14th, 2011 at 10:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Michael Totten reminds us that if Qaddafi wins in Libya after all, it’s not without precedent.  Specifically, the precedent of Saddam Hussein, post-Gulf War I.  Back then we were all “wouldn’t it be great if the dictator fell?”, too- and back then we pretty much sat around and did nothing printable while the dictator went around smashing the opposition back down into the ground*.  Which is what is happening now in Libya, apparently: the rebellion is reportedly collapsing in slow motion. It would seem that while pious words and firm rhetoric is of course all very useful and wonderful and everything, they’re not particularly effective at piercing tank armor and/or providing artillery support… which is something that the people fighting Qaddafi need rather more of right now.  You want to see what happens when we’re not the world’s policeman?  Here you go.

And if that doesn’t bother you on its own hook – after all, worrying about dead foreigners is so… neoconservative, isn’t it? – consider this: both Qaddafi and his regime have only ever responded to the stick.  After 2003, both were deathly afraid of what America and the West would do to them; I suspect that after this is all over neither will much care.  Which is… bad.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Which is why “Barack Herbert Walker Obama” is not a compliment: Bush 41′s actions after Gulf War I personally soured me on the GOP for a decade, and I still haven’t completely forgiven GHWB for that.  If you’re not going to support a foreign revolution, don’t call for one.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • ashland_avenue

    Moe –

    Altho I see your point, it is not entirely clear that if Gaddafi were removed that the replacement regime would be any better vis a vis the US wants and needs
    .
    Further, massive shipment of arms to the rebels might create an overhang of such things falling inexorably into Islamist hands for use over the next several years, or perhaps decades. (See www.stratfor.com)

    And, if we were to aid in replacing Gaddafi in favor of a ‘popular’ regime, what might be our answer when Islamist radicals and/or Shia seek to do the same thing in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Quatar.

    It is just not all as simple as you and others make it appear.

  • swamphermit

    We basically know what we have with Qaddafi, and should leave him alone. Who knows what will come out of Egypt…probably worse than what we had. After watching most of the country cheer Bush 43 out onto the limb, and then saw it off behind him, I’m not for going against Qaddafi just because the UN, Europe, and some Arabs want us to. I hope Qaddafi slaughters his opponents and then give us and the UN, etc the finger. Besides, we can’t afford to play policeman any more…

  • infidel2

    By encouraging rebellion and then doing nothing to help the rebels. you merely bring them out of the woodwork so they can be slaughtered…. very neat, very tidy, very efficient….

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    We have no idea who “the other side” is against Gaddafi. No doubt he is a monster, but that does not mean the U.S. should put guns in the hands of the faceless “anybody but Gaddafi” crowd. They just might be even worse monsters.

    While I find U.S. intervention into Libya troublesome for numerous reasons, one of the biggest realist reasons I am opposed to arming the rebels (and definitely opposed to a no-fly zone) is how do we then not support rebels in Saudi Arabia? Sure, the Arab League has called for a no-fly zone, but I doubt they really mean it — it’s to protect their backside at home from their own rebels.

    What a mess; let’s not make it even messier.

  • davidleigh

    I don’t believe for a second if Bush 43 was President this would have happened. Let’s suppose it did though: Bush would have enforced a no-fly zone. I imagine Bill Clinton would have as well. You can think we’re better off leaving the current regime as is because we don’t know what we’d getas a relacement, but the fact remains Obama is an outright neophyte as President. He simply doesn’t act: he plays golf and has disco parties with the media. And, his pattern as a State Senator was to vote “Present” on just about every piece of legislation that hit the Floor. He’s simply not a leader. You may not want the US to do nothing with Libya. I understand. We ARE broke. But feckless leadership from an American President is going to cost the world. It will take years to rebuild American relationships and credibility. The democrats argued Bush cost us American respect abroad. I say that’s a bunch of BUNK! That was the media talkin’. The world knew very, very well where Bush 43 stood.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Libya’s largest trading partners are Italy, France and the usual European suspects. Last I checked, they also get about a fifth of the oil supply in places such as Italy, Austria, etc. and roughly over a tenth of their gas supply. Europeans danced with the devil and now that the music stops they want us to cut in?

    No thanks. I can’t really find a national interest for us. Especially in supporting opposition “rebels” whose leadership consists of groups like Al-Jama?a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (LIFG) and possibly elements of AQIM.

  • buddha1556

    The author isn’t endorsing a specific course of action. He’s pointing out yet another failure on the part of BHO to think beyond the period on his teleprompter. The saying, “You can’t get a little bit pregnant,” comes to mind.

    As with Iran, BHO wants to play the middle with Libya. By publicly supporting revolution, but offering no tangible support, he has assigned these people a de facto death sentence. Many potential allies in the region will be lost because of this vacuum of American leadership.

    You simply cannot continue to raise the stakes when you’re not willing to commit any of your own chips to the proverbial pot. The bottom line is that he needs to put up our shutup.

  • Tbone

    Bush was getting a lot of bad advice and he took it.

  • ashland_avenue

    No.

    Moe can’t maintain: You want to see what happens when we?re not the world?s policeman? Here you go.

    … without wanting us to be the world’s policeman.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …because apparently nobody else can be bothered to remove the thumbs from their [expletive deleted] long enough to actually do the [expletive deleted] job in anything like an acceptable fashion.

    Believe me, if we had Benevolent Alien Space Bats or something that the USA could safely hand over the hegemony to I’d be the first to advocate dropping our overseas commitments and showing roughly 60% of the planet the Hawaiian Good-Luck Symbol as we headed for the door.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    nt

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-benghazi-monday-march-14-2011-3

  • aesthete

    For that matter, hindsight in Iraq is 20/20 and there’s absolutely no guarantee that intervention during their failed rebellion would have been a prudent course of action, or even workable at the time. It’s nice to imagine alternate scenarios where Iraq, Libya, and others have secular, stable republics that protect their citizens’ rights, but that isn’t always in the cards — or at least, not without an unjustifiably high price tag for the US.

  • aesthete

    and “cowboy diplomacy” in the region if we intervened? Yep, France, Italy and Germany. If Sarkozy wants to act tough, he has his own aircraft carrier, the Foreign Legion, and professional armed forces: let him deal with his own problems.

  • aesthete
  • acat

    Oh wait, they won’t… They were happy to buy Gaddafi’s oil, but don’t want to get their hands dirty either helping him stay or helping the rebels push him out.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    The Gulf War’s politics and structure as a punitive invasion made it an impossibility to go in and set up a client government in Iraq: the Arab League was already skittish, and the Germans/non-Anglo Europeans were not going to help us in that particular venture. No military commander on the ground was recommending it as far as I know, and State Dept certainly wasn’t. It’s easy to pretend that Iraq would have gone swimmingly had we occupied it in the 90s, but it’s more likely that we would have been stuck there with our Anglo allies babysitting a country in a hostile region, losing the support of Arab countries, and putting a lot of pressure on the fragile peace between Israel and the surrounding Arab countries.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …after GW1 then we shouldn’t have said a word about it. I have a real problem with bluffing in international politics unless we’re in an actual war.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    NT.

  • aesthete
  • Tbone
  • PubliusII

    Agreed that:

    1. Obama should have kept quiet. GHWB’s called for the Iraqis to rebel and, when they did, let Saddam crush them. That was shameful. Obama has done the same thing with the Libyans. Obama’s rhetoric is equally shameful.

    2. As others have said, we don’t really know who the rebels are. Afghanistan should teach us the danger of handing over weapons to people we don’t really know.

    3. The world’s paralysis while Qaddafi slaughters the rebels is the way the world really is when America stands aside. It is remarkable that the Europeans never seem to grasp this. Their international groups, such as the ICC or the UN, cannot really replace military power. Their emotional need to believe in “international law” overwhelms their ability to observe and think.

    Having said that, I respectfully submit that we should keep out, because:

    1. A “no fly” zone will not change Qaddafi’s advantage in ground forces. Air cover is useful, but Qaddafi seems to be defeating the rebels because his ground forces are superior to those of the rebels. If the “no fly” zone fails, what do we do when the rebels ask us for air strikes against Qaddafi’s army? If air strikes also fail, what do we do if they ask for ground forces? If the rebels can get us to do their fighting for them, they will.

    2. The Europeans, especially the French, have their own militaries and are much more affected by this problem. The new French foreign minister voluntarily, and gratuitously, conditioned France’s willingness to use force on frist obtaining a UN Security Council resolution. Then France recognized the rebels. Let France square that circle with Russia and China.

    3. As George Will’s column said last week, 4 weeks ago who ruled Libya was not a vital United States national interest. I respectfully suggest that our emotional revulsion at the approaching massacre of the rebels, not our national interest, is what is driving talk of the “no fly” zone. I share the revulsion toward Qaddafi and what he plans to do to the rebels, but is Qaddafi’s barbaric slaughter of his own people reason enough for young American soldiers to die? Respectfully, I think not.

  • powertothepeople

    and let me use an example as to why I disagree:

    First, for the sake of argument, lets associate the world with being a big neighborhood.

    You live on 123 Anywhere street, you observe one of the scenarios:

    A girl getting raped by a pervert,

    A man getting jumped and beaten badly by 15 others,

    A woman being stabbed repeatedly by her estranged husband,

    A man holding a gun on a family yelling he is going to shoot them,

    Now you are big dog in the neighborhood and are more than capable of handling all these situations, Do you

    Turn around and go back inside,

    Close your eyes and act like it is not happening,

    Yell a little rhetoric at the criminals in hopes they will listen and stop,

    Or do you take you powerful big self over there and help those in need.

    The same applies to our country, granted, we can not get involved in every squabble, fight for every person being persecuted, but when you have POS killing a ton of their own simply because they can, we have an obligation to step in.

    That does not mean we need to invade every country that needs to have their butts kicked, but we have ways of using discreet force and stopping problems like this. And you are right, we do not need to give weapons to every rebel force, but we could end Qaddafi’s reign and he would never know it was coming. We could wipe out 90% of his force, cabinet, and family and yet never step a foot in the country. And while some would disagree this is not the example, I would disagree. If we were to kill him it would, it would strengthen our ties with the Arab league, strengthen our ties with certain countries,and would strengthen our ties with that country once the dust settled. Our safety is not the only reason to stand up for the oppressed and the mentality that it is the only reason is not a good one.

    The answer is simple, we need to stop fighting PC wars, fight with our full power, and not talk about it for years before actually doing it. If we simply fought to annihilate as we are capable of doing it would cause us to lose less troops, would cause us to be taken seriously, and would cause other countries to back down the moment we look their way out of absolute fear. But until our gutless politicians are willing to do that, we still need to fight for the weak until they are ready to do it right.

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH
  • rickbull

    Sometimes it’s best to back the devil you know than to back a devil you have not yet met.

    In this case, I think we need to back NEITHER. We as a nation have been criticized by the rest of the world (as well as by our own legislators and our current White House resident), for our intervention in Iraq. How long before all the liberals who support helping the rebels in Libya grow bored with this conflict and start claiming that the Republicans talked us into going into getting involved in another ME conflict?

    No, I will not support BHO’s and USA’s intervention in Libya. If BHO gets us involved in another quagmire, let this one be the albatross hung ’round the liberals’ necks.

    And in deference to ACAT:
    MOO!

  • rickbull
  • rickbull

    and kenny macaskill, Gaddafi’s buddy who released the Pan Am bomber.

  • rickbull

    with very little criticism, because we have a liberal, Nobel Peace Prize-winning president in the White House.

    I’m sorry: I think my sarcasm is showing . . .

    MOO!

  • rickbull

    and that ultimately flexible document call the U.S. Constitution . . .

  • Menlo

    If the same cannot be applied to all nations whose governments harm their people, then it should not be applied to any.

    I will support no different actions with regard to Libya than I would with China. The government of the latter certainly does not treat its people any better.

  • rogershru2

    We’re individual countries. Our troops take oaths to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic – not to be world police and nation builders. There will always be evil in the world, and much more so in morally bankrupt cultures with morally bankrupt governments. Unless there is good reason to believe that what replaces Libya’s government is substantially better (we don’t at this point), then we should stay out of it. Iran was an example where we should have supported the opposition and did not.

  • powertothepeople

    learn analogies and reading comprehension prior to responding next time.

    First, it was an analogy, but even then, being separate countries does not disqualify the analogy since in all neighborhoods there are individual homes. And since I clearly stated “for sake of argument” please work on reading comprehension before replying again. Nothing worse than someone who butts in with intent to correct, yet have no clue as to what they are correcting.

    Second, no where did anyone suggest, myself included, that evil, morally bankrupt cultures, and morally bankrupt governments are a reason to go to war or send our troops into action. So not sure what your point is………

    And a cardboard poster would be a better governor than Qaddafi so if your only prerequisite is that the one we replace with be better than the replaced, we should be in a bunch more wars.

    And based on your own poorly worded reasons, why should we involve ourselves in Iran anymore than we should in Libya?

    And an additional note, again, no one said anything about nation building and the tired rhetoric about the oath the military takes being a block to defending the weak is tired, overused, and holds no merit.