Hillary’s Libya Post-War Plan Was ‘Play It by Ear,’ Gates Says

anatta · Oct 21, 2015

But the really important issues—the questions longstanding followers of the U.S. and NATO intervention want answered—are: Why did Hillary Clinton push for strikes that contributed to the fall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi? And why didn’t the Obama administration bother to plan for the all-too-predictable chaos that came next?

In 2011, as the United States considered intervention, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among those who pushed for intervention—without resolving just how Libya would be governed after Gaddafi, according to a senior defense official who was part of the decision-making process. Obama advisers like Samantha Power and Susan Rice also made the case alongside Clinton. They argued the U.S. had a moral obligation to save lives in Benghazi facing a threatened genocide by Libyan dictator Gaddafi. The only strategy spelled out publicly was that the Europeans’ newly formed “Libyan Transitional Council” would be at the forefront of the effort. Washington was “leading from behind,” to use a famous phrase from the era.

As then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who opposed the U.S. intervention, frustratingly explained to The Daily Beast: “We were playing it by ear.”

And the consequences of that improvisation are still being felt today. The country is an epicenter of the refugee crisis sweeping the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. Part of Libya is under the control of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. And the Russians use the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya to justify their own military incursions in places like Syria.
Hillary?s Libya Post-War Plan Was ?Play It by Ear,? Gates Says - The Daily Beast

anatta · Oct 21, 2015

if you read nothing else about Libya, if you want to get some idea of how disastrous the war was,
and how poorly thought out -this is it.
It's not Bengazi -it's the Libyan war where we far overtook a UN resolution to protect civilian lives through our
"kinetic military action" (war) to Libya where it is today. A failed terrorist state.

Bengazi was just another screw up - if major and costly -along the way of a string of really bad decision
followed by walking away from the hell we created. Here is my documentation of the current civil war,
caused by all this, if you'd like some background
Libyan Civil War 2014 - Present | DCJunkies

anatta · Oct 21, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/w...fuse-to-join-un-brokered-government.html?_r=0

Libyan Factions Reject Unity Government Plan
Four years after the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya risks lurching further into chaos after opposing factions ignored warnings from the United States and the United Nations Security Council and refused to sign up to a government of national accord brokered by the international body.

The United Nations special representative in Libya, Bernadino León, last week presented the final amendments to a peace agreement and announced names for a new government to meet Tuesday’s deadline, when the mandate of the internationally recognized Libyan Parliament expired.

The State Department issued a statement from 40 countries on Monday warning that the failure to reach agreement put Libya at risk of greater instability, worsening a situation that has “led to the loss of lives, allowed terrorism to grow and severely damaged the economy of the country.”

Destroyed buildings in Libya's eastern coastal city of Benghazi on October 20, 2015 as clashes have continued to rage in the area

The latest turn in Libya’s fraught post-revolution path comes exactly four years after rebels hunted down and killed former dictator Moammar Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011

cpwill · Oct 21, 2015

Reminds me back in 2004-2006 time frame when Democrats were hollering about how Bush Was Such An Idiot Because He Didn't Have A Plan For After Saddam Fell.

OrphanSlug · Oct 21, 2015

It sure would not be the first time our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy ended up coming back to bite us in the ass.

betuadollar · Oct 21, 2015

My impression at that time was that pro-Palestinian factions supported Arab Spring and that the Obama administration merely acted to aid them. The outcome was predictable from the start. And I think this administration achieved its goal. What angers me most though is that I believe they intentionally sacrificed lives at Benghazi because as all know, there was plenty of forewarning. And then to suggest this was in reaction to an American-made video, I mean, how bizarre is that? I personally consider pro-Palestinian to be "radical" position, but the United States has a long history of radical factions within its borders so that in itself is nothing new. What is unusual is that it appears we have a president that is supportive.

DaveFagan · Oct 21, 2015

Qaddaffi was about to attack Islamic Fundamentalists, terrorists in Libya. The USA sided with and aided those terrorists, just exactly as in Syria. The USA must be fomenting terror discreetly to influence foreign policy. All the terrorists have USA arms, ergo it is very profitable for USA weapons manufacturers. Good for business, don't ya' know? Libyans now live in constant terror accompanied by death, chaos and destruction, compliments of the USA. I think the NeoCons responsible in Washington should be prosecuted, because no person, anywhere in the USA voted for this crap. The worst part is that this death, destruction, chaos, and terror makes sense to those in charge or it wouldn't be happening.

donsutherland1 · Oct 24, 2015

annata said:
Obama advisers like Samantha Power and Susan Rice also made the case alongside Clinton. They argued the U.S. had a moral obligation to save lives in Benghazi facing a threatened genocide by Libyan dictator Gaddafi.

I strongly disagree with what has become a recent tendency (even nascent doctrine) for some to use "moral" arguments for war, almost always to rationalize the use of force in cases where the nation has no meaningful interests at stake. IMO, there was no moral obligation whatsoever that the U.S. intervene militarily in Libya. That pro- and anti-government elements were determined to use force against one another did not rise to the level where it justified a U.S. military response. If one recalls, the use of force was originally described as aimed at protecting civilians, but it rapidly morphed into regime change. Even if one side were in a position to wage total war against the other, and if one side completely destroyed the armed forces of the other (armed forces are not civilians), the situation was not a case of likely or imminent genocide. Genocide is, IMO, the single case where strong moral arguments can be made for the use of force even when interests are limited.

Finally, if one wants to use the "moral" argument, I'd suggest that taking military action that would bring about a collapse of central authority and increase the prospects of intensified sectarian conflict was the less "moral" choice. Given Libya's history and sectarian divisions, that bad outcome was very likely.

humbolt · Oct 24, 2015

donsutherland1 said:
I strongly disagree with what has become a recent tendency (even nascent doctrine) for some to use "moral" arguments for war, almost always to rationalize the use of force in cases where the nation has no meaningful interests at stake. IMO, there was no moral obligation whatsoever that the U.S. intervene militarily in Libya. That pro- and anti-government elements were determined to use force against one another did not rise to the level where it justified a U.S. military response. If one recalls, the use of force was originally described as aimed at protecting civilians, but it rapidly morphed into regime change. Even if one side were in a position to wage total war against the other, and if one side completely destroyed the armed forces of the other (armed forces are not civilians), the situation was not a case of likely or imminent genocide. Genocide is, IMO, the single case where strong moral arguments can be made for the use of force even when interests are limited.

Finally, if one wants to use the "moral" argument, I'd suggest that taking military action that would bring about a collapse of central authority and increase the prospects of intensified sectarian conflict was the less "moral" choice. Given Libya's history and sectarian divisions, that bad outcome was very likely.

One would think that such a lesson would have been learned by now with our recent experience in the ME. If chaos and dissolution is the objective though, perhaps the lesson was not appreciated in spite of the spoken objections to that very outcome. Sometimes the imposition of order, even an order we are not inclined to endorse, is better than none at all. In short, if we are not willing to impose a preferred outcome with all of the associated costs, we would be better served to stay out of it. Without that commitment, the moral argument is empty.

anatta · Oct 24, 2015

donsutherland1 said:
I strongly disagree with what has become a recent tendency (even nascent doctrine) for some to use "moral" arguments for war, almost always to rationalize the use of force in cases where the nation has no meaningful interests at stake. IMO, there was no moral obligation whatsoever that the U.S. intervene militarily in Libya. That pro- and anti-government elements were determined to use force against one another did not rise to the level where it justified a U.S. military response. If one recalls, the use of force was originally described as aimed at protecting civilians, but it rapidly morphed into regime change. Even if one side were in a position to wage total war against the other, and if one side completely destroyed the armed forces of the other (armed forces are not civilians), the situation was not a case of likely or imminent genocide. Genocide is, IMO, the single case where strong moral arguments can be made for the use of force even when interests are limited.

Finally, if one wants to use the "moral" argument, I'd suggest that taking military action that would bring about a collapse of central authority and increase the prospects of intensified sectarian conflict was the less "moral" choice. Given Libya's history and sectarian divisions, that bad outcome was very likely.

Libya doesn't have sectarian divisions ( Sunni -Shi'a) but doesin deed have geographic fault lines,and tribal divisions.

Other then this very small point I am in 100% agreement with your post.
I've spent most of this evening decrying Clinton's crowing about "smart power" in Libya, when I truth we are the proximate cause of that continuing disaster..

I refer you here, if you wish to see anything I wrote on another, small board where Libya is ofter a discussion of intense disagreements.
Anyways...thanks very much for responding here, and laying out good logical points against "humanitarian war"
Hillary Clinton: Unfit for the Presidency | DCJunkies

If you crave presidential lawlessness, war crimes, and international mayhem, you should adore Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton.

During last Tuesday's CNN Democratic debate, Mrs. Clinton touted the 2011 war to overthrow Libya's Muammar Gaddafi that she orchestrated as "smart power at its best...."

That glibness was even worse than President George W. Bush's post-Iraq invasion delusion of "Mission Accomplished." Consider the following:

Hillary’s Libya Post-War Plan Was ‘Play It by Ear,’ Gates Says

anatta

anatta

anatta

cpwill

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...

betuadollar

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

donsutherland1

humbolt

anatta