PHOTOS: Libyans Applaud President Obama And International Allies With Large Thank You

I can already tell you what will probably not happen: 10 years of occupation, a trillion dollars of costs, and 1000's of American casualties.

 

Bada boom.

 

Havent read through the entire thread, but here's my two cents-

Despite the impending overthrow of Ghaddafi and recent capture of Tripoli by rebel forces, praise for Obama's decision making is not only premature, but in my opinion, overlooks the main concerns that those opposed to intervening in Libya expressed. Those concerns hold despite a favorable outcome in the early phases.

The first of them is that the president engaged this country militarily while circumventing congressional approval in a conflict that was not a war of necessity. There was no pressing need to intervene in Libya, and justifications provided by the administration were specious at best.

The second is that this was done during a time of economic uncertainty- it was reported that the Libyan war cost the US an estimated $896 million through July 31st, according to the Pentagon. One can only assume that the total cost has since surpassed the billion dollar threshold. Though this may not seem like much, it is when the nation finds itself fiscally parlous.

The third is that there was already a coalition organizing to support Libya. Our intervention was not required, and there's a strong likelihood that European allies could have supported Libya absent our assistance and still produced the same outcome.

The fourth is that, as we've learned by now, it is impossible to engineer the future of any nation. Libya's been under the choke-hold of an erratic despot for nearly 42 years. The country is lacking in effective national institutions, and there's no question that it will require a substantial rebuilding effort- will the US commit to this process? Will Libya turn tribal and fracture into multiple municipalities? Will it become a safe haven for terrorists? None of these questions is unreasonable and none of the answers are certain...

The fifth is that Obama's National Security Advisors as well as then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates advised Obama against intervention.

In short, the decision to intervene militarily in Libya was impetuous, and the idea that we can usher in an era of favorable, western-style democracies by way of war is a fool's errand, and one we should be more reticent to commit ourselves to in the future. That said, a Libya without Ghaddafi is better than one with him, and there are obvious reasons to be optimistic, just as there are many reasons to be concerned.

 

I fully agree with you that there is still a lot of reason to be concerned about what happens in Libya now. Frankly overthrowing Gadafi is the easy part. Forming a stable democratic government is going to be much more difficult.

Circumventing congressional approval, at least for the first few months, isn't a problem though as the War Powers Act allows the President to deploy troops. There is a constitutional problem though after the allowed 90 days have passed but Obama isn't the first President to ignore that deadline while at the same time Congress didn't take any action to actually stop the Libyan deployment.

As far as the pressing need or specious reasoning while Libya wasn't a direct threat to the US the effects of what was going on in Libya looked like they were starting to spill over to allies in the region and it is in our interest their to try to limit those.

Regarding pressing consider that when NATO airstrikes began Gadafi's forces were practically in Benghazi and any delay might have led to a blood bath in Benghazi along the lines of Srebenica. I suspect that the US Admin. and NATO had that in mind when they decided to act.

I agree but if turmoil in Libya had further destabilized the region we still might've spent as much or more money dealing with that aftermath.

The problem though is that the NATO structure has essentially hamstrung the rest of the NATO acting without a significant US involvement. Again look at Bosnia where even though it is in Europe the other allies had problems doing anything until the US acted. I agree this is a big problem and would like to see that changed but that is the reality of NATO as it is now.

I fully agree.

It was a wise move by Gates to authorize caution but I suspect his view is limited to considering primarily military concerns while Obama and the rest of the Admin. where considering wider concerns.

Your points are well taken and I agree with a lot of them. That said though as the world is this was about the best situation we could get regarding military intervention. We had the support of the UNSC, we had our allies taking on a much larger role than they have before, we put no troops on the ground. You're right such a move is fraught with problems but compared to almost any other military intervention the US has taken in the last 20 years this was the best we we could expect.

 

When it comes to foreign policy, we now have a oil-drilling country in the heart of Africa who's people love us. That's about as cheap and effective use of $1 billion as there is. We spent 1000x that in Iraq with much worse results.

As was mentioned earlier, what is important is that the people of Libya now get to choose their own future, and they so so with the starting point of the West being their friends. Maybe it lasts, maybe it doesn't. But if we believe in the concepts of democracy and self-determination, this is an across the board win. It's when the US starts picking the winners and losers and installing governments of our choice that we normally go wrong - that's the biggest thing we need to avoid.

 

100% agree. If Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us anything, its that regime change is the easiest part of war.

It's here that I begin to get a little confused. In 2007, Obama told the Boston Globe:

If the case to go to war with Libya was indeed pressing and critical to our interests, then congress would presumably not have issue with signing off and the Obama administration would be stronger in presenting their case. As much as we criticize Bush's militarism, he worked to develop a case for Iraq; perhaps the pretenses were debatable, but he effectively sold Iraq to both sides of the isle. In this regard, I see Obama speaking out of both sides of his mouth- on the one hand, our (emphasis on US) intervention was needed to prevent a potential bloodbath, yet on the other hand he constantly downplayed it after initiating the conflict.

This is very debatable. Alan Kuperman wrote an op-ed that tackled this head on in the Boston Globe entitled, "False Pretense for war in Libya"

Once again, the question has to be why? Why do we assume it to be our responsibility to stabalize nations? Libya is a far greater threat to European nations like France and England. One can only assume that they'd have to begin investing more of their own money into 'dealing with the aftermath' of conflicts than in the past and stop pawning off their problems on the US. France and Britian have the largest defense budgets in Europe, and

Agree that the NATO structure needs revisiting. As for them acting without significant US involvement, once again, Sarkozy and others displayed an eagerness to take action, and we should have let them lead the way with vocal support and nominal military aid (weaponry, etc). That, in my opinion, would have been the best approach.

I dont know. I see Gates as being fairly aware of global affairs, and it's clear that the decision was hotly debated within the administration.

I agree that this was the best outcome up until this point given that we chose to participate in the war effort and that it was far more strategic than past military campaigns, but as I've tried to argue, part of me feels that its besides the point and sets an unhealthy precedent of interventionism. We should be looking at becoming more strategic and ramping down our military commitments at this time, not increasing them...

 

Once again, the idea that "people love us" is presumptuous. There's absolutely no telling where things go from here. Insurgencies form, inter-tribal friction is common, terrorists take haven, political parties with anti-western platforms often gain popularity, etc. The possibilities are endless. It may be that things ultimately turn out in our favor, but there's a likelihood that they dont. Would it be difficult for any Libyan politician to question US motives for entering the Libyan conflict?

Libyan oil production is at 1.6 million barrels/day, which is high, but certainly not as oil-rich as many of its arab-state counterparts and should not be considered a deciding factor one way or another.

As for them telling their own future, I'm not opposed to that at all. My entire point is that they could have done so with the support of European countries who had more at stake than us and had already expressed a desire to support the Libyan people.

 

No - I said that was the starting point. That's where we are today, and there's not much question about that. This isn't a civil war where there was a huge allegiance to each side and we picked a side, pissing off half the country. It seems (from what we can tell) there wasn't much support for the previous regime.

Yes - but that's OK. Our involvement was to give the Libyan people control of their future - it was not to determine their future. We've tried to force the outcome we like in the past, and it's failed miserably. Let them choose what they want. The reason we are often so hated is because we meddle - so let's not meddle.

But that's what happened. We blew up Libya's air defenses in a few days and then basically played a support role, mostly shooting cruise missiles and providing logistical support. That's why the cost was so little for the US.

 

I think this part is a bit tricky and open to interpretation. There were other parties involved, so did he unilaterally authorize an attack? The UN Security Council asked for action and NATO agreed to enforce that. As a NATO member, is participating in that part of our responsibility?

But beyond that, that interview also contained this:

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

Here, he seems to suggest that he has the authority to deploy troops as long as Congress doesn't expressly put a limit for a particular conflict. Congress debated doing that and decided not to put any limits out there.

 

I can't read the Boston Globe link so I can't comment on it specifically but the War Powers Act does allow the President to commit troops to action as long as Congress is notified within 48 hours of doing so. If I recall correctly was that Obama did notify Congressional leaders within 48 hours. The real controversy comes when the 90 day deadline is reached. In this case Obama never did get specific authorization to continue the Libyan action after 90 days.

I agree that Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth and that the use of such power unilaterally by the Executive is worrying. That said though this argument is a somewhat moot point since Congress never said to withdraw the troops or cut funding of the operation after 90 days. Also as previously noted Obama isn't the first president to do this.

That seems somewhat like Monday morning quarterbacking since the Op-Ed was written a month after the Gadafi's troops were at the front door of Benghazi. The facts of the piece though might very well be correct but much of those facts might not have been known on March 19th and the information at the time was Gadafi's troops were just entering Benghazi and Gadafi had promised no mercy to the rats.

Again I agree with you here that having the European allies do most of the work would've been the best but that's not how NATO works.

True but his role is somewhat limited. In the end Obama listened to a variety of opinions in his Admin. and came to the decision that intervention was called for.

The precedent for intervention was set long ago. Obama is not breaking any new ground here but following a precedent going all the way back to another Libyan intervention (Then it was called Barbary).

 

I'm going to try to respond to both posts because I think you both hit on a lot of the same points.

re: popularity with the people

I think on this point we're pretty much in agreement. Might have it today, gone tomorrow. Not a sufficient reason in and of itself to engage militarily with anyone.

re: constitutionality of unilaterally attacking a nation

I'm not debating what he did was constitutional. I'm stating that he himself set this standard, and sold himself as a non-interventionist, at least not without congressional approval. Iraq and Afghanistan were marketed as him cleaning up Bush's mess, which to a degree, was true. Libya was not only his decision, but as I've stated, was questionable strategically and was in direct contradiction to his previously espoused rhetoric.

re: congress saying to withdraw troops

There are many members of congress who did criticize Obama for this decision from both sides of the isle, but as always, its difficult to tell whether or not it was genuine or simply partisan politicking.

re: monday morning quarterback and the case for war

We didnt militarily intervene in Egypt when Mubarak's troops were actively attacking protesters. Bashar Assad has actually committed numerous troops to attack not only protesters, but innocent civilians. Ghaddafi had yet to unleash a 'bloodbath' and to suggest he would do so is speculatory at best. The reality is that our military is stretched thin, and the justification creates a precedent for us to intervene anytime a regime chooses to militarily engage its own population. Given the number of despots in the world, it's unwise, to say the least.

An unintended consequence of actions like Libya is that it sends a warning to countries with despotic dictators or regimes we consider unfavorable to the US- if you havent already, invest significant sums of money in your own military and WMD proliferation. One can only assume that we would have been a little more reticent to 'join in' had the Libyan government not abondoned its WMD program.

re: NATO works

Gates delivered what I consider to be perhaps his best speech I've ever heard to NATO on June 10th. You can read the transcript here (on a side note, I've never been entirely fond of Gates, but in this speech he really hit the mark). Money quote:

 

To put this in perspective, the accounting cost alone of the Iraq War, at its most expensive peak, was estimated to be around $4 billion....per day.

 

Unfortunately a lot of under the breath responses would be "But he's black..."

 

If you're saying Obama is being a hypocrite here I think you have a point. Then again as with things like raising the debt ceiling, extending Bush tax cuts and etc.. that things look a lot different to Obama inside the Oval Office than out.

True many but what really matters is that Congress as a body never passed anything ending the Libyan mission.

Actually Egyptian troops didn't attack the protesters while they were overthrowing Mubarak, those were thugs who sympathized or were in the pay of Mubarak. The Egyptian military mostly stood by or in some cases protected the protesters. That is why Mubarak fell because the army didn't back him. Plus those thugs charging Tahrir Square were riding camels and horses and armed with sticks as opposed to Gadafi's troops at Benghazi armed with Kalishnikovs, RPG's and riding tanks and APC.

Given that it was an actual military attacking Benghazi and not camel riding stick wielding thugs a possibility was that there was going to be a bloodbath. Now granted the information presented in the Op-Ed paints a different picture but again that is from a month later with after action information. We will never know whether Benghazi would've been a blood bath and its just as speculative to say it wouldn't have. In this case I am willing to give Obama a break as if that actually happened Obama would likely be excoriated now for it.

As for why we haven't engaged Assad in the same way I think you have answered your own question. Our military is stretched thin. Also we don't have a willingness on the part of allies to do something that would compel us to act. I agree its hypocritical, cynical and terrible for the people of Syria but Obama is hardly the first president in this respect.

Actually that message was sent long ago when the only member of the Axis of Evil we attacked was Iraq. Anyway I don't think the failure to act in Syria has anything to do with WMD but more the lack of international will and also little oil in Syria.

And I agree with Gates but he is pointing out that many of our allies are already not really carrying their share of the burden. That's why the US had to act since France, UK and Italy couldn't do this alone. Gates might not have felt this was a situation to act but with most of NATO pushing for it along with the UNSC the US was pretty much compelled to act.

 

How long do you think it will take the US?

 

Hey tallanvor - take your hand and repeatedly hit your face with it. K thanks.

 

Interesting points, and I think your point is well taken. There are a number of points that we both agree on, its simply a matter of how we interpret them.

re: Outside vs. Inside the beltway

Agreed, but I think we shouldnt necessarily accept contradictory promises/speech vs. action as an inevitibility. It's not just Libya that we see this in; he ran on an extremely idealistic platform, and has yet to fully measure up to those ideals. In 2007, he said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center:

Earlier this year when addressing the nation, he said:

These are things as a people we should take seriously. Regime change was an initial intent and there's little debate about that now. If he had tried to sell the nation on a platform of regime change, it would have been roundly criticized, and quite frankly, I feel that under a republican administration the sort of blase attitude we see about Obama's decision making (both foreign and domestic) would not be tolerated.

re: Constitutionality

I'm not re-hashing the constitutionality of it because I'm not a legal scholar by any means. Just wanted to say that Glenn Greenwald has an article that argues the unconstitutionality of Obama's decision to militarily intervene in Libya sans congressional approval.

re: Congress not passing anything to end Libya

They also never passed anything to end Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the last, and perhaps only war I can think of that ended as a result of congressional resolution was Vietnam, which occurred roughly 20 some years into the war. If we have to rely on congress to end our conflicts, suffice to say we're not going to leave anywhere anytime soon.

re: Egypt/Syria dynamics vs. Libya

No argument here. I think we'll both agree that the stick brandishing thugs on camel backs werent merely rogue supporters of Mubarak as much as they were an orchestrated resistance by Mubarak's regime (albeit a pretty pathetic one at that). As for Syria being different, I think your concluding point is the most salient one- it's hypocritical, cynical, and terrible for the people of Syria. I'm not advocating military intervention (obviously, I didnt even think Libya was a good idea), but merely stating that our action and inaction has consequences in determining our global legitimacy as well as middle east support/antagonism towards this country.

re: Message when attacking Iraq

I think the message was not to linger as long as Saddam did- as we now know, he had no WMD's, and unlike Saddam, it's inconceivable that we'd wage war on any nation with stronger military capabilities ie a North Korea, Russia, or even Iran. Nations build up their military and weapons programs not only for potential conflicts, but as a deterrent against those conflicts ever taking place; if countries with little to no WMD development consistently find themselves at the losing end of armed conflicts and regime change while those with solid military capabilities do not, a message definitely gets sent.

re: Compelled to act

This is where we'll have to disagree. We allow ourselves to feel compelled because we lack the fortitude to enforce amenable terms to existing agreements. That NATO stipulations are not being met by other members is unfortunate, and rather than accommodate that reality, Obama could have made this a line in the sand moment- get your act together, strike unilateraly and we'll provide nominal financial support, and begin defending your own interests and not rely on the US to do your bidding for you.

In any case, as we've both said, there's still LOTS that has to take place and until and unless those things work out, it's presumptuous to cast the Libyan intervention as a success or failure.

Below you'll find a clip from Morning Joe with Jeremy Scahill, who does quite a bit of work covering the CIA and foreign affairs. He's on with Howard Dean and Tina Brown, and it's astounding how robotic Dean sounds in trumpeting over and over again that what Obama did is so great, etc. whereas Scahill provides a much more nuanced, cautious perspective:

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc6667a9" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"