• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission [edited]

Objective Voice said:
I would say to everyone "REMAIN CALM!" Per the article in the OP, it's speculation at this point as to knowing exactly what's going to happen in Libya as far as what form of government takes shape when Ghadaffi (spell check) is either removed from power by force or he leaves of his own accord if he leaves at all. More to the point, without knowing exactly what the U.N. resolution states, you really can't determine for sure what's going to happen because we don't know what the resolution actually calls for. (I tried to find the resolution calling for Libyan air strikes but it's not posted at the U.N.'s website yet.)
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable.
 
Objective Voice said:
we don't know what the resolution actually calls for.
Click to expand...

no one does, each nato member appears to be interpreting directives uniquely

Libya war: Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart | Mail Online

Allies Strain to Mend Split - WSJ.com

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/21/501364/main20045649.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e-participation/2011/03/21/ABXlEg5_story.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-battle-to-protect-united-front-2249067.html

http://euobserver.com/9/32033

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/sarkozy-nato-libya-france

NationalJournal.com - During Gates's Visit, Russian Defense Minister Calls for Immediate Cease-Fire - Tuesday, March 22, 2011

China calls for immediate cease-fire in Libya, after days of allied airstrikes - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

WRAPUP 1-Emerging powers join in opposition over Libya strikes | Energy & Oil | Reuters

U.S. Says Libyan Campaign to Ease as No-Fly Zone Is Secured - Bloomberg

Bombing raids in Libya to recede within days: US - Yahoo! News

France could extend operations beyond Benghazi

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/151375-president-struggles-to-define-mission-in-libya

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/...operation_to_install_a_democratic_system.html

White House denies regime change is part of Libya mission - TheHill.com

no wonder hillary called em a bunch of amateurs

can you deny it?

stay up
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Edit: Haven't seen DonaldSutherland. I wonder how he'd weigh in on what's happening...
Click to expand...

Maggie,

I've commented in a few threads. My thoughts are as follows:

My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.

I continue to believe that it should be up to the Libyans to wage their revolution, fully recognizing that there is no guarantee that the revolution would be successful under such circumstances. I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution. While I support the anti-Gadhafi forces, I do not believe the U.S. should be helping wage their revolution. I just don't see the compelling U.S. interests that would justify such direct intervention.

I also remain concerned about the lack of broad-based support for the revolution. Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented. The masses of people in areas from which Gadhafi's forces were initially driven out did not join the revolutionaries to to necessary extent that a building tidal wave of popular support would have toppled the regime. Therefore, no knockout blow was delivered.

Given that reality, should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power--and that could still happen--the lack of broad support for the anti-Gadhafi forces and the poor political/military skill shown on their part raise real questions as to whether they could forge a sufficiently stable and broadly representative government quickly enough to avert the dangers of the power vacuum that would be left in the wake of the dictatorship's demise. There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough. Mere pledges of democracy would not be able to avert those risks.

Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate and those differences raise credibility issues. For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone). I favor a more limited military mission (as noted above, and would have preferred supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces rather than the no fly zone). Nevertheless, the gap between the political rhetoric/stated policy and the actual military mission is not helpful. It is important that the rhetoric/official policy reflect the reality. Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Maggie,

I've commented in a few threads. My thoughts are as follows:

My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.

I continue to believe that it should be up to the Libyans to wage their revolution, fully recognizing that there is no guarantee that the revolution would be successful under such circumstances. I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution. While I support the anti-Gadhafi forces, I do not believe the U.S. should be helping wage their revolution. I just don't see the compelling U.S. interests that would justify such direct intervention.

I also remain concerned about the lack of broad-based support for the revolution. Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented. The masses of people in areas from which Gadhafi's forces were initially driven out did not join the revolutionaries to to necessary extent that a building tidal wave of popular support would have toppled the regime. Therefore, no knockout blow was delivered.

Given that reality, should the Gadhafi dictatorship be driven from power--and that could still happen--the lack of broad support for the anti-Gadhafi forces and the poor political/military skill shown on their part raise real questions as to whether they could forge a sufficiently stable and broadly representative government quickly enough to avert the dangers of the power vacuum that would be left in the wake of the dictatorship's demise. There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough. Mere pledges of democracy would not be able to avert those risks.

Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate and those differences raise credibility issues. For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone). I favor a more limited military mission (as noted above, and would have preferred supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces rather than the no fly zone). Nevertheless, the gap between the political rhetoric/stated policy and the actual military mission is not helpful. It is important that the rhetoric/official policy reflect the reality. Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
Click to expand...

This cat has got to be the most professional damn moderator I've ever seen in my LIFE. Whether or not I agree with him is irrelevant. His posts are always top notch.
 
donsutherland1 said:
My preference would have been supplying arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces. A no-fly zone aimed at protecting civilians would be as far as I would go, but that was not my preference. As that is the direction things went, I strongly support the military men and women who are involved in the effort.
Click to expand...

the direction things went?

yes, someone killed gadaffi's son, someone's been bombing tanks and other ground forces

i'd say thank you for supporting our troops, but that would be presumptuous of me, they are our heroes and heroines

I am concerned about the risk that the mission could morph into active intervention on the side of the revolution.
Click to expand...

concerned about active intervention?

you just said you want to arm one side

Col. Gadhafi still enjoys a significant reservoir of support, and not all of that support can be explained by coercion. I suspect that such support more than Col. Gadhafi's use of air power might have explained why the anti-Gadhafi forces ran out of steam and were in broad retreat until the no fly zone was implemented.
Click to expand...

i haven't hear a whiff of that in any of the sources

There would be real risk of civil war if such a transitional government could not be formed quickly enough.
Click to expand...

i think there might be very real risk even if someone could put something together fast

Finally, while the no fly zone has been designed, in theory, to protect civilians, the rhetoric coming from Washington, Paris, and London has differed at times from the mandate
Click to expand...

it's worse than that, the white house can't hold to a line for more than a day or from one office to the next, no two coalition partners can seem to agree on the mission

For example, President Obama recently stated that it is official U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Yet, the military mission is much more limited (unless it has already evolved into something beyond a no fly zone).
Click to expand...

unless?

Either the rhetoric/policy goals have to be reined in or the military mission expanded. I favor the former. Otherwise, U.S. policy and communication on the issue will be viewed as hollow.
Click to expand...

yes, and the world is watching

i'd like to ditto the comment above about the outstanding quality of your posts, sincerely
 
Seriously, people - I don't think there is a single Arab country that gives a flying **** for America, or owns the least bit of lasting gratitude or would remain a friend of the US one second longer than they needed our millions or protection. Their false friendship to the US ends the minute it is in their interest to become opposed to us.

What the hell are we doing there? Will achieve absolutely nothing of military value and will piss off ally and enemy alike.

Cluster**** Obama is pushing the US in a messy and most probably, a fruitless operation.
 
The Prof said:
the direction things went?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the choice to pursue a no fly zone.

yes, someone killed gadaffi's son, someone's been bombing tanks and other ground forces
Click to expand...

The claim about the death of one of Gadhafi's sons has not been substantiated. The second part is consistent with the broad language adopted in UNSC Res. 1973. IMO, the language is overly broad.

concerned about active intervention?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to direct military intervention aimed at helping the revolution succeed. I oppose it. The revolution should be waged by Libyans alone. Whether it succeeds or fails should not be determined by whether the U.S. provides direct military intervention on their side.

you just said you want to arm one side
Click to expand...

Supplying arms is not the same thing as direct military intervention.

i haven't hear a whiff of that in any of the sources
Click to expand...

Analyses by Stratfor, among others have discussed this issue. The absence of spontaneous nationwide uprisings, especially when the anti-Gadhafi forces were making rapid progress, was a warning sign that the revolution did not enjoy the broad support of Libyans. The fairly limited scale of defections, even when it appeared that the anti-Gadhafi forces were heading for a rapid victory in the early days of the uprising, also signaled critical support for the dictatorship. Had the revolutoin enjoyed broad support, one might well have witnessed a turn of events along the lines of Egypt's military refusing to intervene. That did not happen. That the dictatorship has rewarded various tribes who have served its interests has created a vested stake in its survival. In short, not only does the dictatorship command significant support, there are many reasons other than coercion that explains that support.

i think there might be very real risk even if someone could put something together fast
Click to expand...

If a truly broad-based transitional government could be agreed, the risk would be lower. Unfortunately, as I believe that the revolution is does not enjoy sufficiently broad support, odds against such a transitional government are reduced. The poor political skill demonstrated by the anti-Gadhafi groups also reduces the risks of the formation of such a transitional government.

unless?
Click to expand...

I don't have access to the information the Administration has/decisions that have been reached behind-the-scenes. Whether or not the apparent gap between the stated military mission and U.S. policy/communication is really as large as it appears is somewhat uncertain. Actions in coming days will establish whether the mission is more than just concerned with a no fly zone.
 
Have conservatives actually not noticed that liberals are generally against this action taken by Obama?

Incidentally, a tomahawk missile is about as expensive as most of a teaching career.
 
Last edited:
Will someone please wake me up when 120 000 American troops enter Libya.
 
Deuce said:
Have conservatives actually not noticed that liberals are generally against this action taken by Obama?

Incidentally, a tomahawk missile is about as expensive as most of a teaching career.
Click to expand...

But, but... he's a left wing radical, Marxist.
 
American said:
Link


Well well well, all this sound familiar? :doh
Click to expand...

Yes, it does sounds familiar... I am waiting for all the Republicans to rally their support, and Democrats to condemn... Oh wait, they won't because the president is a Democrat and people will play partisan bs instead of thinking about their actions.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Will someone please wake me up when 120 000 American troops enter Libya.
Click to expand...

When you have a President like Obama eventually....

1 WTF are we doing? Kill Qadaffi? Stop Omar from targeting his own people with air power? Are we supporting an insurgency? A No Fly Zone? Air cordon? Ground strikes on Libyan Army? Support the insurrection to install a Democratic system?

How is that going to be achieved? Naval air? Tomahawk strikes? Arab pressure? European allies? .....EVENTUALLY GROUND FORCES
 
Kandahar said:
And the mission creep continues. The no-fly zone quickly escalated to air strikes, and now protecting Libya's people has escalated to spreading democracy to Libya. One way or another, Obama is NOT going to get the result he wants in Libya. It's better to not even be involved in this.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree... though I read that the air strikes slowed down the massacre. I think that's enough.... I think that's all we should do.
 
Where is Yemen's "No Fly Zone?"


j-mac
 
donsutherland1 said:
The claim about the death of one of Gadhafi's sons has not been substantiated.
Click to expand...

the attack on his compound, however, occurred

IMO, the language is overly broad.
Click to expand...

so is obama's

I'm referring to direct military intervention aimed at helping the revolution succeed. I oppose it.
Click to expand...

the white house doesn't

except on the days that it does, the mission appears to change every hour

Supplying arms is not the same thing as direct military intervention.
Click to expand...

it's dangerously close

Whether or not the apparent gap between the stated military mission and U.S. policy/communication is really as large as it appears is somewhat uncertain.
Click to expand...

the entire mission is uncertain

ask the state dept, ask eric holder, ask the italians, germans, french, english, arab league...

ask congress

Actions in coming days will establish whether the mission is more than just concerned with a no fly zone.
Click to expand...

actions in coming days will establish a lot more than that

the world is watching
 
apdst said:
I'm curious as to why the anti-war crowd isn't already in the streets.
Click to expand...

Probably the same reason the Right's been all "support our troops" until this. It's all blind politics--follow your side, not your nation.
 
rocket88 said:
Probably the same reason the Right's been all "support our troops" until this. It's all blind politics--follow your side, not your nation.
Click to expand...

The problem seems to be though, Rocket88. that 'the nation', in the form of the Government, has no clear goal.

The support might be there if the people knew what they were intended to support.
 
Boo Radley said:
So far, this isn't equal to Iraq. Stopping the civilian killing is different than invading on a pretext. Now, if he means to install a democracy, he's making a similar mistake to what Bush made in Iraq. We do have to see where this goes.
Click to expand...
no you got it wrong see when the W.M.D.'s fell flat GW changed his tune and made it about (oh we are sooo concerned about what Sadam is doing to his people we need to go to war with him) and it worked so now Obama figured it worked once it'll work again and is using the exact same line to sell this war to the public. WTF!!!
 
obama, december, 07:

"the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"

biden, may of 07:

"if he (bush) gives authorization to war without congressional approval i will make it my business to impeach him"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

these are NOT points, partisans

they're problems
 
The Prof said:
obama, december, 07:

"the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"

biden, may of 07:

"if he (bush) gives authorization to war without congressional approval i will make it my business to impeach him"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA

these are NOT points, partisans

they're problems
Click to expand...

Perhaps BHO can resolve these disparities when he returns home to see what his teleprompter has to say.
 
The Prof said:
obama, december, 07:

"the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation... unless of course his name is Obama, then have at 'em!
Click to expand...

corrected. :ninja:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom