• 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!

Obama' libyan coalition Falls apart

Providing limited weapons (and I have made the point about limited weapons clear in a number of past messages on the topic), namely a modest number of anti-aircraft weapons, would be anything but a quagmire.
Yet we must recall the incredible yet failed effort to retrieve and account for stinger missiles after the Soviet pullout from Afghan. Are we to arm people who may very well use those arms against us or others in the future?

Unlimited weapons would be an issue.
I agree. I did not believe you were supporting that.

Tactical air strikes are not justified, because the U.S. lacks the critical interests to become involved in military operations.
given the amount of "aid" we pony-up to keep Libyan nuclear scientists "busy" doing medical research rather than making weapons indicates that our interest in Libya is of importance.

Libya under Gadhafi does not pose an imminent and credible threat to the U.S., critical U.S. interests, or U.S. allies.
I agree that there is little to no worry of Gadhafi as an unpredictable and aggressive dictator as compared to Saddam

Emotions are not sufficient to justify direct military intervention.
agreed

Indeed, I believe the emotional urge "to do something" following the collapse of Somalia's dictator and evolution of a civil war was an example of a terrible decision to put emotions ahead of interests. The Cold War had largely wound down. Somalia had no geopolitical importance. The collapse of Somalia's dictatorship and jockeying of factions posed no threat to U.S. interests or allies. Sending troops there was, therefore, not anchored in critical U.S. interests.
And what of the pirating off the coasts of Somalia? Unattended soars can fester--sometimes they go away on their own. But that is a whole other debate.



There is no contradiction. In the former case, the Libyans would be waging the war all by themselves. In the latter, the U.S. and others are doing so to some extent.
So you believe the rebels can overcome Gadhafi's army and mercs with such limited US assistance? It would seem that if we are going to support one side we should do our best (within reason) to ensure they win. Otherwise why should we bother at all?


I was talking about how the U.S. and other Western leaders were communicating their message concerning the mission, rationale for it, etc., not the politics of other nations.
That makes sense. I agree.

Clearly, the U.S. and West, cannot make democracy magically appear in Libya. That would depend on the Libyans themselves, their institutions, their laws, etc. That Libya has had a monarchy followed by a long period of authoritarian rule is no coincidence. It is a product of the country's institutions, structure, history, and dynamics. Even if the anti-Gadhafi revolution succeeded, the barriers to democratic governance would be very steep and democratic governance would not be the assured outcome. It might not even be the most likely one e.g., civil war might be more likely given tribal rivalries, the reality that Col. Gadhafi still enjoys significant support, etc.

I'm not inclined to believe that a democracy would result from this civil war rather than any other type of government. Civil wars often result in years of further bloodshed and violence. Some countries never fully recover. America was one of the few exceptions.
 

That doesn't counter that France and Germany have been at serious odds over this mission from the start. Russia (via Putin) has been against it from the start and Medvedev has been pro. The common factor in both cases is leaders who are jostling for power before elections coming up.
This actually includes Sarkozy who seems to have launched his fighter planes before the ink was even dry on resolution 1973. Sarkozy is playing tough because he faces annihilation at the next Presidential elections, Angela Merkel just got a drubbing as German voters swung to the left and would have wiped her out completely if Germany had agreed the actions in Libya and Medvedev seems to have found his b***s to try and face down Putin before next year's elections in Russia.

Some countries want NATO to run this but are deeply aware NATO involvement in yet another arab / muslim country won't go down well with the arab league - especially Turkey who can veto NATO involvement. All this is old news given a dramatic twist by the Daily Mail.
 
IMO, this exercise risks becoming a case study of bad leadership and communication, if increasingly urgent corrections (mission definition + consistent message articulation) are not made.

First, the risks involved illustrate exactly why national interests, not emotional impulses, should drive the application of military force. America's, France's, and the UK's providing weapons to the anti-Gadhafi forces (my preference) would have entailed no commitment from states such as Germany who possibly have even fewer interests in Libya than the U.S., France, or UK.

Second, I believe the military mission should not be widened beyond an NFZ. Tactical air strikes aimed at helping the anti-Gadhafi forces should not be furnished. Such a move is not justified by critical U.S. interests (nor those of the other Western states participating). The revolution should be waged, won, or lost by Libyans.

Third, in my opinion, maintaining a strong and effective partnership with Germany is far more important than any of the stakes involved in Libya. In terms of the national interest, there is no contest whatsoever, even if the worst-case scenario of a complete Gadhafi victory materialized. Dependable allies are extremely valuable. Partners who join "coalitions of the willing" do so only because some temporary cause brings them together. What they bring to bilateral relations is far short of what reliable allies offer. While I'm not yet sure of where things stand vis-a-vis Germany, I am fully aware of its consistently-articulated positions on the issue and strongly believe NATO as an organization should not take a formal role given Germany's needs.

Fourth, communication has to be clear, consistent, and focused to be effective. To date, the communication has been muddled, inconsistent, and anything but focused. Different leaders are saying different things. Some leaders are even saying different things to different audiences or at different moments. There remains no succinct definition of the mission at hand, much less one that has had any staying power. The gap between rhetoric/policy and actions has created a genuine credibility problem.

donsutherland1 translated said:
Obama screwed up.

I completely agree with you. :mrgreen:
 
Germany pulls out of Nato and the coalition falls apart...what a cluster this is...we shouldnt be in there in the first place


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

Obama can deceive himself and say he wants to do things for noble reasons and get noble results....but at the end, he will end up disappointed, frustrated and yeah, cluster****ed

or he can acknowledge that all nations are really only honest when they are operating in their own self interest.

Bottom line - If we aren't getting nada, zilch out of Libya, then WTF are we doing there?
 
Your first problem.. The Daily Mail

Second problem.. it is an utter lie and distortion by the Daily Mail.

Third.. Germany was against the operation from the start, so it is hardly "the coalition falls apart" moment.. Germany was NEVER IN IT!..

Gezz, do you conservatives never learn when it comes to FACTS?

The problem is Obama will not show leadership and is following what the UN says
 
No one knows for sure. Problem is Gaddafi claims so, so automatically the accusation looses a lot of credibility. You have to also factor in that the people of Eastern Libya are of a different tribe than Gaddafi, and have been in conflict with his tribe and the other major population group of Libya for hundreds of years.

Now is it possible that there are AL Q from Eastern Libya? Of course there is, but there are Al Q from everywhere.. US, UK, Israel, you name it. Chances are also good that Gaddafi himself sent people on Jihad against American interests in Afghanistan and Iraq and used the cover of Al Q as an excuse.

Basically we do not know.

Al Qaida commander backs Libyan rebels in message
 
Yet we must recall the incredible yet failed effort to retrieve and account for stinger missiles after the Soviet pullout from Afghan. Are we to arm people who may very well use those arms against us or others in the future?

That's why I believe arms aid should have been limited. I am assuming that the military has developmed mechanisms to address the flaws associated with the Afghan effort. If not, then the overall costs and benefits would have to be weighed carefully. Then, it might well be prudent to do nothing.

given the amount of "aid" we pony-up to keep Libyan nuclear scientists "busy" doing medical research rather than making weapons indicates that our interest in Libya is of importance.

Right now, that's a theoretical problem. In any case, I do not believe direct military intervention in a civil war is the best way to address such an issue.

And what of the pirating off the coasts of Somalia? Unattended soars can fester--sometimes they go away on their own. But that is a whole other debate.

I don't think there is much that the U.S. could have done to prevent Somalia from descending into a failed state. Moreover, in the whole scheme of things, piracy is a minor geopolitical risk. Rather than worrying about providing security for all shipping, the U.S. could narrow its approach to providing security only to ships carrying vital cargoes (mainly oil). Other ships would need to make alternate plans i.e., re-route, hire security personnel, or help defray the costs associated with naval intervention. Recreational vessels should avoid the waters altogther. There is no justification for pleasure craft to sail those waters under the current circumstances.

So you believe the rebels can overcome Gadhafi's army and mercs with such limited US assistance? It would seem that if we are going to support one side we should do our best (within reason) to ensure they win. Otherwise why should we bother at all?

Early on, supply of select weapons probably could have made the difference. Then, Gadhafi's forces were reeling and his regime was putting out feelers for an exit. Now that time has passed and it has become clear that the revolution is actually a much narrower uprising (Gadhafi still enjoys significant domestic support) and the anti-Gadhafi forces' battlefield gains have been largely eliminated, the opportunity to topple the dictatorship may have passed. That's something the military would need to assess. If, in fact, the opportunity has passed, then the U.S. should only provide such support that would be necessary to avoid losing credibility, namely to lend some concrete actions to its earlier-stated position that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Then, salvaging U.S. credibility would be the sole basis for providing some support, and if the regime survived, few could argue that the U.S. didn't at least make some concrete effort to advance its official policy.

I'm not inclined to believe that a democracy would result from this civil war rather than any other type of government. Civil wars often result in years of further bloodshed and violence. Some countries never fully recover. America was one of the few exceptions.

I don't believe democracy is assured or perhaps even the most likely outcome should Gadhafi be driven from power.
 
Germany was never involved, so there leaving isn't really important. That said, the inability to get a unified command together is pathetic. NATO is the wrong organization to use as many member states have doubts and Libya is outside the traditional mission scope. The French have the right idea in creating a separate unified command.

Yeah, they're only the biggest economy in the EU. :roll: Their pulling out is symbolically huge.
 
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) escalated his critique of President Barack Obama’s handling of military operations in Libya Wednesday, sending the president a scathing letter that demands answers to the run-up to engagement in the region and hits the White House for first consulting the United Nations and the Arab League, but not Congress.

Boehner wrote in the letter that he is “troubled” the United States military has been engaged in the attacks on Libya “without clearly defining” what the mission is and what America’s role is in achieving the goal.

Given Boehner’s methodical, and deliberate messaging strategy, the questions he posed are likely to keep surfacing until sufficient answers are given to Congress.

John Boehner rips President Obama on Libya - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

the speaker of the house asks the president:

1. does the mission include the removal of gadaffi or doesn't it?

2. which nations are to lead?

3. what are the lines of authority and responsibility?

4. does the mission include land based targets?

5. if coalition members drop out, how will that effect our role?

6. when are we to turn over control?

7. if gadaffi survives, how long will nfz last?

8. what's our relationship with the opposition, what standards must they meet to achieve recognition?

9. what's the cost, what's the payfor?

10. how does this action fit into our broader middle east policy?

now you might call the orange dude partisan, which is fine, fair

but most your neighbors would say he's right

his questions deserve answers

party on
 
That's why I believe arms aid should have been limited. I am assuming that the military has developmed mechanisms to address the flaws associated with the Afghan effort.
I'm not aware of any mechanisms available to poof weapons out of people's arms.

If not, then the overall costs and benefits would have to be weighed carefully. Then, it might well be prudent to do nothing.
It would seem to me that American air power would avoid the issues of distributing, training, and reclaiming those arms. It would allow the US to play an IMMEDIATE role in assisting the rebels by destroying heavy targets and grounding gadhafi's air force. Which is exactly what we have witnessed and what the rebels needed.


Right now, that's a theoretical problem. In any case, I do not believe direct military intervention in a civil war is the best way to address such an issue.
Supporting a Libyan faction to power that is sympathetic to US desires would achieve those results.

I don't think there is much that the U.S. could have done to prevent Somalia from descending into a failed state. Moreover, in the whole scheme of things, piracy is a minor geopolitical risk. Rather than worrying about providing security for all shipping, the U.S. could narrow its approach to providing security only to ships carrying vital cargoes (mainly oil). Other ships would need to make alternate plans i.e., re-route, hire security personnel, or help defray the costs associated with naval intervention. Recreational vessels should avoid the waters altogther. There is no justification for pleasure craft to sail those waters under the current circumstances.
My point was that we don't live in a vacuum. Our actions and inactions have consequences.

Perhaps there was nothing that could be done for Somalia.


Early on, supply of select weapons probably could have made the difference. Then, Gadhafi's forces were reeling and his regime was putting out feelers for an exit. Now that time has passed and it has become clear that the revolution is actually a much narrower uprising (Gadhafi still enjoys significant domestic support) and the anti-Gadhafi forces' battlefield gains have been largely eliminated, the opportunity to topple the dictatorship may have passed. That's something the military would need to assess. If, in fact, the opportunity has passed, then the U.S. should only provide such support that would be necessary to avoid losing credibility, namely to lend some concrete actions to its earlier-stated position that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi leave. Then, salvaging U.S. credibility would be the sole basis for providing some support, and if the regime survived, few could argue that the U.S. didn't at least make some concrete effort to advance its official policy.
What good will come from this "credibility"? Is it more important than a libya (and a world) without Gadhafi? What do you propose we save this "credibility" for?

Is a Bay of Pigs repeat acceptable?

I don't believe democracy is assured or perhaps even the most likely outcome should Gadhafi be driven from power.
I don't know enough to say. But given the location I'd agree.
 
Hmm whatever happened to the US conservative approach that everyone who is against US military operations is a traitor (Iraq war era)? Is it because that Democrats are in charge you wish to politicise the whole thing.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic, considering all the crap you put the "left" through over the Iraq war.
 
What happened to the US telling the UN we would take the leadership role. Thats right!!! We have Obama who does not know what a leader is. He would rather see the UN be our leader
 
What happened to the US telling the UN we would take the leadership role. Thats right!!! We have Obama who does not know what a leader is. He would rather see the UN be our leader

Like I said in another thread the US should have abstained from the UN resolution. But since we didn't everyone knows the US is the backbone of the UN. We need to take charge if none of weaker members of the coalition are willing to grow a pair and take charge. The end game has to be the removal of Gadafi. The truth is we should have never gotten ourselfs into this mess.

 
Last edited:
Like I said in another thread the US should have abstained from the UN resolution. But since we didn't everyone knows the US is the backbone of the UN. We need to take charge if none of weaker members of the coilition are willing to grow a pair and take charge. The end game has to be the removal of Gadafi. The truth is we should have never gotten ourselfs into this mess.

Obama is not taking the lead, he looks weak and is showing he is not a leader
 
It just goes to show you that coalitions of the “willing” are much more orderly than coalitions of the “volunteering” but I will take the latter over the former every time.
 
It just goes to show you that coalitions of the “willing” are much more orderly than coalitions of the “volunteering” but I will take the latter over the former every time.

Sure...as long as it is someone elses ass on the line you dont really care. You WERE the one itching for us to go to war in Egypt, werent you?
 
It just goes to show you that coalitions of the “willing” are much more orderly than coalitions of the “volunteering” but I will take the latter over the former every time.

Coalitions are a bitch. 10 - 15 nations with different languages, different rules of engagement, dissimilar capabilities, etc, etc and may look great on paper BUT its usually a case of the sum of the parts being worth far less than the parts individually.

Typically, one nation does the heavy lifting

Is it any wonder that our country is bankrupting itself?
 
May it also be noted the coalition is half the size of Bush43's.

Seeing that size mattered back then, it seems Obama has a wimpy little coalition of the unwilling. Perhaps, I should rephrase that... Sarkozy has a wimpy little coalition. Or NATO has a wimpy little coalition. Or Cameron and Sark... ah hell... who's running the store anyway?

.
 
We have no business in Libya, or anywhere off US soil with US troops.
 

Typical you... you never understand anything do you?

This was the Daily Mail headline.

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

It is dishonest and wrong and that is what I am complaining about.

Your links are closer to the truth and it shows that they come from actual news organisations.

The Daily Mail first claims Germany is pulling its forces out of NATO.. no they are not. They are moving a couple of ships and saying NATO cant have command over them. That is their right to do so.

The Daily Mail also claims that because Germany is supposed removing its forces from NATO, then the coalition is falling apart. Again wrong and dishonest. Germany was never ever part the coalition so how can the coalition be falling apart?

The Daily Mail took a story about conflict in NATO and the coalition on who should lead the action and turned it into a story about the end of NATO.... typical Daily Mail bs.
 
Obama ****ed up by getting us involved. Now he'll have to end up taking full control, plus the US will have to do most of the heavy lifting again......and our money of course. Instead of letting the EU handle this one....dumbass. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom