Posts by glennd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes, perhaps he has a conscience.
Well I would have attributed it most likely to the fighting between Clinton, Gates, the Pentagon, the CIA and so on and Obama not stamping on them for a couple of weeks. Not that this precludes the existence or otherwise of a conscience, please note.
You're talking about those weeks during which the entire world had not made up its mind? There's a reason that didn't happen - there was not enough information.
I think that is a little generous, there was a couple of weeks of Clinton doing her thing pushing for intervention. The UN and NATO were busy ramping up. It'd have been fairly straightforward to line up Congress in preparation for a vote if needed. Still, I am not going to go ascribing motives to anybody or second-guess what people were actually thinking. Just saying that it could have been a whole lot more "legal" and simple for Obama, which I think points to the disunity in the various factions which Obama did not control initially (or even now).
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
I don't hate Obama, not any more than I hated GW Bush or WJ Clinton. I am not sure why you think I do, but I am enjoying in a very black comedy way the unfolding clusterfuck this is becoming with the half-truths, backtracking, speeches and NATO merrily carrying on whatever it feels like doing. Every President gives us some (Bushisms, "depends on your definition if it", etc), this is Obama's turn. I am however quite amazed at the politically risky way Obama has been doing this when there are more straightforward means.
Anyway Obama did not get a congressional vote, he can only use his power to act quickly without such a vote if there is a clear and present threat to the USA. Even Sec Def Gates has explicitly stated to the world that such a threat never existed. In that sense, the war is illegal according to US law. There is disrepute and there is law, the two aren't the same. Sure, something of a technicality in the view of some and it is very unlikely he'll be impeached, but if he had got the vote during the couple of weeks he was apparently worried (while the rest of NATO did what they did) then his ass would be iron-clad covered now.
As for no American troops on the ground. Well yes not yet, but NATO is clearly gearing up for that militarily and by the statements of the operation commander now. It is somewhat hopeful to think that US troops would not be involved in a NATO deployment. Obama has 60 days to get congressional approval for continuation of the war, assuming that technicality is also observed, if troops are deployed before that then it is going to be messy politically. But as I said before, I doubt that Congress (well maybe the Kucinich left will hold out to make a statement, but I expect the Republicans will back him by some majority) will screw the President once war is actually engaged and will approve continuation.
-
Their willingness even more so.
Well its a pity Obama and Hillary got them into this one in an illegal manner. If Congress was forced to sign-off, chances are good that they'd have refused. Even the Pentagon didn't want to touch it before ordered to.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Not sure what you mean as that being the function of a president. Every other US president in recent years has gone through the legalities of getting congressional approval for any US war, internationalist or not. Obama is now treading a fine line of running an illegal war, giving speeches worthy of GW Bush and generally promising to lead from behind, when it suits, if we feel like it and if we can be "convinced" by our NATO buddies to undertake kinetic military action, not war mind you.
And now the NATO Libya commander is opening the possibility of occupation troops... it'd be funny if it wasn't all so predictable. But it is an international exercise, well a NATO exercise, of which the USA always supplies the supreme commander, and the immediate commander to the Libyan theatre is an American, which is run by a Canadian Admiral luckily so technically the US is not running things.
-
Have now watched Obama giving his speech and I can honestly say I've never seen him look as unconvinced reading something as he was last night. But the material was reminiscent of something Bush would have been given to read, full of allusions, moral imperatives, short on facts and details with torturous attempts at justification.
It all was an exercise mainly in justifying the exceptional act of taking the US to war without congressional approval but on the President's limited power in the face of a clear and present threat to the US. No matter how he twists it that just wasn't there and even Gates has flatly stated so. He also never said the word "war" and the "opposition" only once. No hint as to who these people are despite the coalition providing them an air arm, and he must know that there are rumours flying about al Qaeda involvement and other islamists but he takes no time to dispel such notions?
But now over the weekend we learn that not only has the US not pulled back but A10s and AC130s have been flying offensive sorties. Aircraft useless to no fly zone enforcement but excellent for tank and armor busting and clearing out dug-in fortifications and troop concentrations. If you stand back now and look at it, what you have is the coalition first gaining air supremacy and now systematically demolishing the tanks, armor, artillery and other fortifications of the Libyan army. I am having a hard time seeing that this is not standard clearing of the field for safe troop deployments, coupled with the benefit of depriving the unknown rebels of capturing tanks and other heavy firepower.
It seems odds on now that troops will be deployed at some stage, and I'd guess they will be an occupation force under the banner of a peace-keeping operation once the Libyan army has been neutralized and the rebels have been effectively deprived of heavy equipment. So someone does have a military objective, the question is what the political objective is.
Whatever Obama said in that speech, it bears little resemblance to what is going on in Libya. Whether he is the organ grinder or not, he is making it ever harder to extricate himself.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Somalia was different to Libya of course, but it failed for the same reasons that Libya, if it fails, will have. No clear political objective, no clear military objective in support of the political objectice, no leadership and only a vague objective about humanitarian protection without the will and power to ensure that comes about in any meaningful sense. In fact Obama's latest speech took multiple options off the table already. It does not matter if the effort is "progressive internationalist", "neocon imperialist" or whatever else, a humanitarian mission will most likely fail if not backed by long-term political and military objectives backed up with proper leadership. I imagine that was part of the reason that the Pentagon opposed action to start with.
Somalia required nation building, something that used to be done but no longer is, and if that had been the honest goal then forces sufficient to the task should have been deployed to clear the warlords, protect and aid civil life and build new institutions. Instead what the Somalis got was forces barely sufficient to disperse some aid and react only to warlord activities. A golden rule of war is to not meet the enemy at the time and place of his choosing, unfortunately these humanitarian missions begin by ceding precisely that point to the "enemy".
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Quite, however you still must then stay and rebuild whatever you defeated if it is to mean anything. Which takes time, treasure and will to do the job over many years... most of which are lacking since around the end of WW2. And it is too much like "imperialism" for some.
Going to war against a "mass term" is nothing more than an abuse of the concept of war. A war on crime or drugs is just an absurd concept. A war on terror is marginally better but still dopey. A war against a state harbouring terrorists makes sense. And rebels? Well they are just non-government forces and means you're involved in a civil war really.
Having read Obama's latest speech I still don't see any coherence. Is it a no fly zone operation to protect civilians and supply humanitarian aid? Clearly not, the coalition is giving close air support to "rebel" offensives so in fact the coalition has chosen sides in a civil war. In which case why is he ruling out regime change? It was all rather an after-the-fact justification of skirting US law and spelling out for Ghadaffi that if he can hold on long enough then he can get back to business as usual, with a few sanctions in place. The old fox has been around long enough to know that those are easily skirted. The difference will be that he has been injured and knows for sure that playing nice (internationally) is no longer a profitable venture.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to Simon Grigg,
The difference compared to Desert Storm and Just Cause is that in both those once the executive decision was made to go to war the military was given its necessary freedom to conduct operations according to the defined goals with more than adequate forces. They had both no doubt been heavily war-gamed to death in prior years as well. Mogadishu was one of those nebulous peace-keeping exercises with no clear objective for commanders or men on the ground, generally insufficient committment of forces and a fragmented leadership. While the US lost a "relatively" large number of men in Mogadishu, they in turn inflicted casualties on the Somalis far out of proportion to their number. So if it had been part of a wider "proper" war it'd have been a hard won victory after a command f-up. But there was no proper war as such, so it was treated in isolation and becomes a defeat... not strangely the public reacts to that, not out of deflated egoism but they can pick up just as well when a cause not being prosecuted properly. After all, the UN pulled out altogether as well, not just the US. I'm sure the US military schools have many a contingency plan for Libya but I doubt they'll be dusted off in this situation. Just keep your fingers crossed the military *and* political lessons of Somalia have been learned.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
True one does not use helicopters to enforce a no-fly-zone, which is why I said "type of incident". You can easily imagine downed airmen getting in the same situation, or other captured personnel. It also rather depends on if it remains restricted to a no-fly-zone.
My main point was that Somalia was the same type of internationally lead operation against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the security of the US (or much anyone else) but the cavalier leadership and careless lack of an objective saw it devolve into farce from day one with the rather pissed looking marines landing to face flood lights. God knows what would have happened if a fire fight had erupted there.
Nevertheless, according to US law Obama must go to Congress after 60 days and get authorization to continue the war. He played fast and loose with getting into the war by not consulting Congress so it is difficult to see he will push his luck too much. Chances are they will extend it since the Republicans will probably end up backing a "war president" to maintain the tradition. On the other hand it may be used to effect a withdrawal from all operations.
-
Hard News: Libya, in reply to BenWilson,
Whether Obama/the US is being drawn into an international effort reluctantly or wholeheartedly is somewhat beside the point. Somalia was a similar effort but is remembered in the popular psyche as a massive US embarassment, blackhawk down and a huge propaganda tool for Islamists.
I still contend that this whole internationalist thing will be beside the point for the American electorate if there is a blackhawk down type of incident or other debacle in which bodybags are prominently brought home or if Obama is yet again "reluctantly" drawn into more intensive operations, even more so if there are still two on-going engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't participate in a war of any dimension and then only claim minor responsibility, the opponents never see it that way.
But you are right in that once he hits the campaign trail and can start reading from the script again then his chances will improve. But if anything goes wrong between now and then in terms of American deaths then no amount of hopey changitude or "it was an international operation" is going to put a bandaid on that. Still he might get lucky and Ghadaffi might backdown, you never know.
As for the domestic politics, I think that is for another thread but of course Obama will try and blame Bush and the Republicans for whatever problems persist whether it is fair or not. He's been doing that consistently anyway. His grasp of leadership doesn't seem to extend to taking the good with the bad in terms of legacies.