Listening to President Barack Obama talk about the administration’s Libya policy is a strange experience. He makes various arguments justifying the war there along the lines of: dictator Muammar Gaddafi is a bad guy, he has killed a lot of Americans in the past, and he was threatening to kill his own people so the United States must protect them.
As one listens to this, however, it seems as if even Obama doesn’t believe what his teleprompter is saying. The arguments are ridiculously transparent and if the media wanted to be critical they could tear Obama apart on the issue. First, Gaddafi was not a threat to U.S. interests at the time a decision was made to intervene. The reason why is important to remember. Whether or not the war in Iraq was a good idea, the fate of his fellow dictator, Saddam Hussein, scared Gaddafi badly. He was quick to play nice and turn over information on his nuclear program to the United States.
The Americans then accepted his “repentance.” It would be strange to put much moral commitment into a deal with Gaddafi. But for the record, the U.S. government did in a sense betray a promise to leave him alone if he left U.S. interests alone and didn’t subvert his neighbors or sponsor terrorism. Combined with the U.S. treatment of Husni Mubarak, dictators aren’t going to put much faith in the Obama administration’s promises. That’s one more reason why it seems to make more sense to be America’s enemy than its friend nowadays.
Second, while Gaddafi is a brutal dictator, rulers in Algeria, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and other countries are equally willing to kill and torture their citizens. What the U.S. government must justify is why human rights violations in some countries deserve intervention and the same thing or worse in others don’t. Usually, the distinction is made on the basis of national interest. The regimes in Iran and Syria are enemies of America and thus helping their oppositions and subverting them should be of higher priority. An exception can be made in countries — Rwanda or Uganda under Idi Amin being two examples — when the repression is so bloody and horrendous that it should not be ignored.
What has happened — without any serious public debate! — is that the Obama administration has abandoned the main traditional determinants of U.S. foreign policy — especially a priority on national interests — that have been taken for granted by presidents of both parties for decades.
Aside from Obama’s poor justifications, there is a clever national interests argument made by defenders of the administration that the United States is intervening in Libya due to oil there. That seems reasonable, but I don’t think there is actual evidence to prove this was the White House’s motive, though it was a factor in European thinking that, in turn, did help shape U.S. policy.
I would suggest that the actual main reasons revolve around ideology. The administration is now obsessed with proving that it supports reform and democracy, having adopted a whole interpretation of the Middle East that accords with this concept. Ironically, the administration is doing this only after that view has been disproven by events, including the experiences of its predecessor. Remarkably, the very approach used by the Obama administration is one that its current leaders spent years ridiculing. Nevertheless, this contradictory situation seems to be what’s happening.
To show that America is “on the side of history,” the “masses,” and reform — also in line with the administration’s distaste for realpolitik — Libya seemed to be a great opportunity to pull another revolution as in Egypt and Tunisia. This time, however, the Obama administration would get even more credit–at least that’s what the White House thought. “Bad dictator removed by good president,” might be the headline.
*** Aside from Obama’s poor justifications, there is a clever national interests’ argument made by defenders of the administration that the United States is intervening in Libya due to oil there. That seems reasonable but I don’t think there is actual evidence to prove this was the White House’s motive, though it was a factor in European thinking that, in turn, did help shape U.S. policy.
This answers the question of the U.S. war goal in Libya. It wanted to overthrow Qadhafi and install a friendly, moderate, democratic government. But since the rest of the world–which is allowed to define U.S. policy–wasn’t ready for that Obama can never say so publicly.***
I believe it was the same with Sarkozy and Cameron. It’s a transatlantic thing.
Another point: Never underestimate how clueless Clinton the Hilarious and co. are on the Middle East. The US representative in the UN GE has been trying in serious to sell to other members the infamous Viagra theory. Just to think: A Bedouin army supplied with Viagra because otherwise the soldiers won’t be able to gang rape.
To be fair to Obama, his election rival sen. McCain seems to be even more enthusiastic about Libyan interventionism than the administration.
Your last paragraph in “Why Is the U.S. in Libya?” says it all: “Yet the Libya story is a perfect case study for this administration’s ignorance, incompetence, ideology, abandonment of traditional bipartisan foreign policy thinking, and wishful thinking. It is a trial run for the longer-term mess unfolding in Egypt and several others around the world. To study the Libya issue is to understand the Obama Administration.” Yet the U.S. media is taking a pass on this issue, and on the passive, directionless and destructive foreign policy of Barack Obama.
Sorry, but my bet is still on the oil theory. The Libyan intervention was led by Europe. It’s not necessarily because they wanted a friendlier regime, but because the rebels threatened to shut down the oil supply to Europe if Qadhafi is allowed to continue repressing them, and they proved they could. Libya has oil that is easy to refine and its loss and the spiking oil prices were a series blow to European refineries and destabilized the European economy. My bet is that the Europeans persuaded Obama who at this point also thought he had nothing to lose since Qadhafi was killing plenty of people, which gave it a humanitarian purpose too, and he was likely to fall as fast as Saddam (so it seemed, I guess).
If the US will leave now, with Qadhafi still in power, it’ll be a disaster. Qadhafi already made clear he won’t sell any oil to Europe ever again, and the US will prove itself completely impotent losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not being able to even topple Qadhafi with his primitive army. The US will be considered weak and certainly not as invincible as it seemed in the past.
Before shooting off your moufs, better check out the latest Austin Bay column on the Libyan front. He is at town hall.com and at mysa.com as well. As usual, Colonel Bay does a first-class SITREP.
Berber tribesmen have managed to put together a decent conventional military force that is successfullly controlling key terrain and which is almost certain to overcome Qadhafi unless betrayed.
Berbers are reasonably well-disposed towards these United States.
In the late 18th and early 19th century, Commodore Preble, General Eaton and his Marines plus Berbers were within a whisker of desposing a proto-Qadhafi regime in favor of one fit for polite company. They were sold out by Tobias Lear.
Let us not again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Obamnaroids may well be in violation of the War Powers Act. If so, some way must be found to properly chastise them. However, not at the cost of
again turning on those who are on our side.
As to the oil: I would suggest that the Yurps get Libyan oil for $60 a barrel for the next 20 to 30 years. This will reward them for their efforts in ridding the world of the Duck of Death. AND $15 of every $60 will go to Uncle Sam to reimburse him for his efforts. This leaves the Berbers/other friendlies with plenty of money to maintain the oil production, pay royalties to all Libyan citizens, and fund legitimate governmental services without perpetuating indolence. The American left will scream bloddy murder of course as will elements of the right. However, putting all arrangments on a businesslike basis will win friends among Arabs who distrust claims of American altruism.
In short, Libya is an opportunity. Hope we take advantage of it.
Sorry ashat but please SHOW ME in the U.S Constition where we can attack a Sovereign Nation ???? that has not attacked us ????
I’m still not hearing anything from anybody in Washington on who is going to get stuck with the bill for rebuilding Libya if Gaddafi is thrown out of power? Where is all the money going to come from, the IMF? Heck, they can’t even loan enough money to Greece, let alone rebuild a country like Libya which has been devestated by civil war. And who will maintain order in that country? The Rebels? Oh please, they will probably just rape and pillage as payback for what the Gaddafi forces did to them. And I doubt NATO has the stones or the desire to put a peacekeeping force in there, just so that they can become fresh targets for Gaddafi’s former followers. Sounds like this is turning into another Iraq. Once again we have an American president proving the point that it’s a lot easier to depose a dictator than it is to run the country once he is gone. You broke it, Mr. President, now you bought it.
I think there are two basic reasons for The One’s Libyan “kinetic action”.
First is his personal ideology. Qaddafi knuckled under to the U.S., the source of all evil in the Universe (along with Israel). Therefore, he had to be punished- not “removed”, just beaten up enough to make him “see the light” of returning to the “Arab” (i.e., “radical Islamist”) fold. It also sent a message to the likes of Syria and Iran, along with Obama’s support of the overthrow of Mubarak by what are now known to be (surprise!) radical Islamists; I’m On Your Side.
As long as Syria, Iran, et al., remain anti-American, anti-Semitic, and committed to the Great Jihad, they have nothing to fear from The One. Because he is devoted to the mystical, anti-colonialist dogmas of the extreme left, and will let nothing impede the progress of those that dogma holds to be “morally superior” to the “cold, unfeeling” West. (Yes, he’s confusing Islamism with Hinduism and Buddhism- a hallmark of the left’s trademark intellectual laziness.)
The other reason is even simpler, and has little to do with oil, pan-European “solidarity”, or anything else.
It is entirely possible that The One’s putative sanity is eroding. Simply put, he may be losing it.
clear ether
eon
It is the oil. I need some help: when have we ever got our “investment” back in cheap oil after going to war? Iraq? Alamo?
It always seems we just get a friend out of the deal.
Plain and simple, Obama is trying to break the US bank, as Reagan did to Russia, all the while giving our $ to his muslim brothers(hood) al q etc.
Regardless of whether it’s a war for oil or for humanitarian reasons, if the USA can’t defeat a third-rate country like Libya in 24 hours of combat, then we should NEVER go to war again.
…”why is the US in Libya?”
LONG answer …obama is a dick.
Short answer ..obama is a dick
Wrong, Brother! A dick is part of a man, and Obama doesn’t fit even that description. How about, instead, a synonym for a piece of kindling wood?
After all, he is a vigorous supporter of sodomy.
sorry to see that you have trouble with the uses of the english language.
I am sure most readers understand the reference.
good luck and hope that you will eventually be able to live on your own without assistance.
regards
many more people have died and will die due to the western intervention in Libya.
for the west there was never a reason to engage in Libya. …other then to de-stabalize the region even more then it was and I my opinion that is the reason that obama engged the war.(I am confident on a personal level he did not want to do it because Kadaffy Duck is a fellow traveler)
I love the ‘war for oil’ meme. We import negligible amounts from Libya – we’re now at war because Qadhafi cheesed off the French.
I do think in the case of the french it is for the oil. just as the Italians didn’t want a war ..again because of the oil. (Italy has oil contracts that will be in jeopardy due to the fighting)
May one suggest that Oscumbo is in Libya to:
1. Support his fellow moslems in their islamic jihad to control first all the arab countries; then the world.
2. To kill. Babies, elderly, anybody he can suffocate.He loves to kill. His very first order on usurping the presidency was to kill babies at federal expense, in federal hospitals.
3. To spend wastefully, in every way possible; destruction of our capitalist system imperative to his assumption of the Universal Caliphate.
4. To provide a distraction from his communization of private enterprise, GMC, AIG, Healthcare, etc. Diversions can be effective.
5.And because Ayers and Wright, et sim, told him to do so. He has neither a bright nor an inventive mind. He is but a “jive-turkey”, taking orders. But sometimes they don’t provide sufficient detail; then he knows not what to do.
Why does everyone expect Obama to be able to administer the US when he is just there as a figure head doing the bidding of others.
He reads teleprompters but has no cognition of the material.
He is today’s Pinocchio.
I’m curious. Is he a puppet, doing what his masters order him to do? Or is he following an agenda that is merely an imperialistic agenda. I’m sure it’s no secret that his campaign was a total fraud on the American public. I wonder why people haven’t scraped off their “Hope/Change” bumper stickers. I’d be ashamed to admit I’d voted for him.
A lot of plausible answers here, both by Mr Rubin and from readers. Left unsaid though, if I am Iran or Russia or China or …., and I see that NATO can not easily defeat 1/2 of Libya, even with the backing of the other 1/2 of Libya, in about a day or two, I am licking my lips. In other words, don’t discount the strategic disaster that this is turning into. NATO has been revealed to be a eunuch… out of bullets indeed!
ha ha ha ha.. I could not help but post this again.. Just compare the arguments Barry Rubin made (up), to cheer lead the Iraq war with his criticism of Obama’s Libya mishap. First of all, these two wars are not of the same order. Iraq war has changed the strategic calculus in the world order for the worse (for US). Libya war has no strategic impact even at the regional level. Iraq war was a game changer: It has sucked all the energy and credibility (not to mention thousands of lives and trillions of dollars) off the US so she can no longer dominate the world order. As a matter of fact, so called Arab spring is a result of the loss of US power due to Iraq war.
It would have really helped if Barry Rubin was realistic about the Iraq war.. but, nooooooooooooooooo..
Middle East Update:
What Does Post-Saddam Mean?
by Barry Rubin Jerusalem Post (Internet Edition)
PURSUE THIS TOPIC:
RESOURCES
Roots of War
Jihad: America’s New War
Let’s assume that the United States and its allies have overthrown Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. What types of issues and problems will follow?
Looking ahead like this is not merely an exercise in prophecy. It is an attempt to think through probable and possible developments as a guide to what policies should be adopted, how they should be implemented, and how to plan for dealing with future contingencies.
Here are some ideas, and their implications:
Once the regime is overthrown it will not make a comeback. The Ba’ath party is a relic of the past, kept in place by its control over the state. No one is going to rebuild the current regime, if for no other reason than that people seek power for themselves and want to avoid the stigma of the past. Iraq may again be a dictatorship but who needs Saddam to recreate that?
After the regime’s downfall, U.S. forces will be able to take journalists on tours of hidden Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) facilities, hidden arms arsenals, torture chambers and prisons. They will be able to show them documents and interviews about Iraq’s secret backing for terrorists and a connection with Osama bin Laden if one existed. Iraqis will speak out on how much they hated the regime and how much it oppressed them. If the war does not go on too long and casualties aren’t too high, there will probably be an outpouring of retrospective feeling that the attack on Saddam was a good thing to do.
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction would then be easily discovered and removed or destroyed.
A key issue from the start will be whom the United States backs to rule Iraq. Clearly, the democratic-minded exiles led by Ahmad Chelabi are in a favorable position, but how will they be mixed with “insider” groups including high-ranking military officers? Will the returning exiles be able to maintain unity? How will they be received by those who never left Iraq, how much power will the U.S. government give the new regime, how competent would they be at ruling, and how long will the honeymoon last?
Timing is critical and it might be the factor which trips up the American effort. The United States must stay long enough to establish a stable regime but not too long to wear out its welcome. Indications are that U.S. leaders envision a long stay, and this decision might prove far more dangerous than the choice of going to war in the first place. The longer U.S. forces stay in control and in large numbers, the more likely there will be antagonisms of Iraqi nationalism, Arab sentiment, and Islam. Equally, a prolonged stay would undercut the legitimacy of a successor regime.
Just one example of how this would work: Let’s say there are 20 applicants for a cabinet-minister position. The U.S. authorities could pick the most competent and honest candidate, but the other 19, along with all their families and supporters, would still hate them for it. They’d have every interest in labeling their successful rival an American puppet and mobilizing all sorts of lies and nationalist and Islamist appeals, even trying to find foreign sponsors on behalf of their own ambitions.
How will the three key communities – Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurdish – get along? Will a federal solution, with more autonomy for the regional provinces, be acceptable and workable? The Sunnis will have to accept that they no longer rule the country. The Kurds will have to deal with their own unity – they are now split into two rival regimes in the north – and accept a more limited territory than they want. The Shi’ites will have to create a new leadership altogether, somehow balancing secularist and Islamist factions.
None of these tasks will be easy.
In terms of economic reconstruction, Iraq will probably be able to pay for itself fairly quickly with expanded oil exports, but there is a massive and long-term series of projects necessary to rebuild this sector and other damage to infrastructure.
Then there are all the international factors involved.
European states would quickly seek lucrative contracts with the new Iraq and want everyone to forget they were opposed to the war in the first place.
Turkey does not want a Kurdish state or anything approaching one. It is interested in protecting the ethnic Turks in northern Iran and ensuring that neither Kurdish refugees nor guerrillas cross into its territory. On the positive side, Saddam’s overthrow could signal an economic bonanza large enough to pull Turkey out of its recession. The Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline would run full every day, thousands of trucks would cross the border with Turkish exports, and Turkish manufacturers and construction companies would provide a lot of the equipment and labor to rebuild Iraq. Ironically, the Islamist government in Turkey could gain huge support for its “success” in improving its country’s economy.
Iran will be happy to see its enemy, Saddam and his regime, thrown out of office, but less happy to find large numbers of U.S. troops and a pro-U.S. government on its border. The problem is not so much whether Iran can control the Iraqi Shi’ites – it cannot – but the extent to which Tehran will try to subvert the new regime by backing terrorist groups among Kurds and Shi’ites. In the parallel case of Afghanistan, Iran liked the downfall of the Taliban but then made problems for the new government. But the Iranian opposition might see the Iraq outcome as an inspiration to heighten its own struggle against the hardliners.
The Arab world will no doubt quickly recognize a new government in Iraq once U.S. control recedes a bit. The Saudis will want to assure its friendship, Jordan will want to deal with it economically, Egypt will want to explain why Baghdad should follow Cairo’s lead, and Syria will want to make sure the new regime is not hostile to it.
The effect on Arab-Israel issues and Palestinian politics? That requires another article.
Toward the United States there will probably be a curious mixed response in the Arab world. Arab regimes concluding that the United States was too powerful to challenge will seek to avoid confrontation. At the same time these rulers will be determined to show their peoples that what happened in Iraq was bad, to mobilize support lest America comes after them, and to deter their citizens from seeking democracy or other types of things the Iraqi exiles and United States hope to institute in Iraq.
Finally, there is the question that might come to dominate Middle East history for the first half of the 21st century: Will Iraq be a model for moderation and democracy in the same way Egypt has been for Arab nationalists and Iran has been for Islamists? We will be spending many years discussing that point.
* * *
1995-2003, The Jerusalem Post – All rights reserved, used bypermission – http://www.jpost.com.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center at the Interdisciplinary University.
Wow, you do have to work on your reading skills. Is that what you call “cheer lead the Iraq war”? This article tries to asses possible positives, negatives and problems resulting from invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein. In the end he leaves it to the readers to decide, but advises against a long stay in Iraq (“Indications are that U.S. leaders envision a long stay, and this decision might prove far more dangerous than the choice of going to war in the first place.”).
Among the possible positive results he mentions:
- Saddam’s regime will not come back. Though there might be another dictator instead.
- Iraqi WMD will be removed or destroyed.
- The regime’s crimes will be exposed.
- The other Arab regimes will conclude the US is too powerful to challenge and will prefer to avoid confrontation (indeed after the fall of Saddam Gaddafi admitted to his own nuclear program).
Among the possible negative results and difficulties he mentions:
- Who will the Armericans choose to back? If they’ll back the pro-democracy opposition in exile how will they be accepted by the powerful insiders? Will they be able to preserve unity and rule competently?
- If the US will stay too long resentment against it will grow, and it will also undercut the legitimacy of the new regime.
- How will the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds get along?
- A big investement for reconstruction will be required until Iraq is able to support itself with oil revenue.
- Turkey will be afraid of a Kurdish state and of Kurdish refugees and guerrillas crossing the border.
- Iran will try to subvert the new regime by backing terrorists.
- Arab rulers who will fear the same fate as Saddam will incite their own populations against what’s happening in Iraq and against the US to garner support from their populations.
- We don’t know if Iraq will indeed become a model for moderation and democracy.
I think that if I was supporting the Iraq war, then after reading that I’d at least give it a second thought. I could decide yes or no, but to say this article was cheerleading the Iraq war is ridiculous.
It ain’t complicated.
The British remember Lockerbie. They know who did it … Gaddafi. So they want Gaddafi gone. They asked for our help, and we owe them for Afghanistan. Plus, we remember Pan Am Flight 103 too.
Simple … and that’s why the Senate ain’t offering any obstruction.
Pan Am Flight 103
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
Wait a minute. Didn’t we get into this war to save hundreds in thousands in Benghazi from certain annihilation? Preventing “a massacre” or “genocide” was the argument for intervention I heard on my TV.
My wonder is what in the world could be going on in the minds of our senior military people as our Stumblebum in Chief engages and disengages with a variety of hostiles in the Middle East.
I know nothing about matters military but did our engagement with Libya have to open with a gazillion dollar bang? I see the value of shock and awe and it seems to have worked in Iraq but Libya ain’t Iraq. And what about the continued and prolonged high tech expenditure? Why spend a billions in high tech weaponry to defeat an enemy which, as Conrad Black suggests, could be defeated by the Tallahassee Police Department?
What the hell is going on?
‘Yet the Libya story is a perfect case study for this administration’s ignorance, incompetence, ideology, abandonment of traditional bipartisan foreign policy thinking, and wishful thinking’
This is what you get when you elect an empty suit disguise as pseudo intellectual. I hope and pray The Libyan misadventure will be the beginning of the end of the Obami regime.
If you’d have interviewed Samantha Power or Anne-Marie Slaughter before writing this, you would have answered your own question as to “why we’re there.” The Obama Doctrine (excellently defined at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-obama-doctrine-defined/ ) turns U.S. foreign and national security policies on their heads: no longer will the U.S. pursue national interests on the world stage; rather, the U.S. will only act in multinational body-approved endeavors “for the betterment of the larger all.” This is what Obama meant by the “change” part of his ridiculous campaign slogan, not to mention the femininization of the State Department and National Security Council. To our collective detriment! He has to be broomed in 2012, along with the rest of his academic coterie of clowns.
The Sovereign Wealth fund of Qatar is the second largest investor in Adecoagro. The largest investor is George Soros. In March 2011 the Libyan ” rebels ” signed a deal with Qatar making them the exclusive marketing agents for Libyan oil. Qatar imports 90% of its food. Soros will have the ability to trade food for oil instead of currency. Both he personally and the Qataris will make a killing. Why does Obama have US troops in Libya? A favor for a pal.
British Petroleum owns Obama too. BP wants in Libya, Obama will want the Obama center built and funded.
Why is the US in Libya?
Because Obama sees an opportunity to glorify himself, strengthen his criminal allies and weaken the United States. The details don’t matter, those are the motivations, because they are always his motivations.
In 2003 Barry Rubin prophesied of the aftermath of American victory in Iraq:
“Toward the United States there will probably be a curious mixed response in the Arab world. Arab regimes concluding that the United States was too powerful to challenge will seek to avoid confrontation. At the same time these rulers will be determined to show their peoples that what happened in Iraq was bad, to mobilize support lest America comes after them, and to deter their citizens from seeking democracy or other types of things the Iraqi exiles and United States hope to institute in Iraq.
Finally, there is the question that might come to dominate Middle East history for the first half of the 21st century: Will Iraq be a model for moderation and democracy in the same way Egypt has been for Arab nationalists and Iran has been for Islamists? We will be spending many years discussing that point.”
In 2011 Barry Rubin rebukes president Obama who has been right about Iraq all along:
“Yet the Libya story is a perfect case study for this administration’s ignorance, incompetence, ideology, abandonment of traditional bipartisan foreign policy thinking, and wishful thinking. It is a trial run for the longer-term mess unfolding in Egypt and several other countries around the world. To study the Libya issue is to understand the Obama administration.”
I conclude Barry Rubin “theorizes” as it fits his ideological liking. He is wrong on all counts. Case closed.
You have to learn to properly understand what you’re reading (see my reply to you above), otherwise you just end up making a fool of yourself.
In the article you cite – even in the 2 passages you cite here – Rubin pointed out the possible pros and cons, problems and incertitudes concerning the Iraq war and toppling Saddam. He neither encouraged the war, nor discouraged it, except warning that a long stay in Iraq will be very dangerous and will have very negative results. And where was he wrong in the 2 passages you quoted? He said in them:
- “Arab regimes concluding that the United States was too powerful to challenge will seek to avoid confrontation.” – Correct. After toppling Saddam Gaddafi admitted he had his own nuclear program and was willing to let inspectors in and dismantle it. If Arab regimes are less scared now it’s because Obama makes the US look weak.
- “At the same time these rulers will be determined to show their peoples that what happened in Iraq was bad, to mobilize support lest America comes after them, and to deter their citizens from seeking democracy or other types of things the Iraqi exiles and United States hope to institute in Iraq.” – Correct.
- “Finally, there is the question that might come to dominate Middle East history for the first half of the 21st century: Will Iraq be a model for moderation and democracy in the same way Egypt has been for Arab nationalists and Iran has been for Islamists? We will be spending many years discussing that point.” – That is a question, not an assertion. He doesn’t say Iraq will become a model for moderation and democracy, but that we don’t know if it will (somewhere else in the article he also says there might be another dictator instead of Saddam). The only assertion is that this question will be discussed for many years. Considering this question is still debated now, I’d say Correct on this one too.
Analysts like Rubin don’t have a crystal ball and can’t tell the future, they can only try to estimate and can’t be correct in everything because there are too many unknown and unpredictable factors. At the time he wrote the article he didn’t even know how long will the US and allies stay in Iraq, which he considered crucial. Still this article did a good job in foreseeing many of the problems that indeed arose – the tensions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, Iran supporting terrorism in Iraq, the conflicting aspirations of different Iraqi factions and personalities, the resentment toward America among Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims that will grow the longer the US stays in Iraq. But your mind filters all of that to make you see only what you want to see, because it’s not Rubin who ‘“theorizes” as it fits his ideological liking’, but rather you who read as it fits your ideological liking.
The only reason you attack Rubin is that you can’t defend Obama. He criticizes Obama and you have no answer, nothing to say that is to the point, so you attack the massenger hoping people won’t listen to him.
If Obama opposed the Iraq war for the right reasons, how come he seems to think similar situations in Egypt and Libya will turn out better and lead to democracy? Even many of the people who supported invading Iraq and toppling Saddam learned from the experience. Apparently Obama didn’t.
Interesting viewpoint. You should post your ideas about this on http://www.whitehousevoice.com!
What you really mean is,” Mind closed”. Ofecesbama wants to destroy our economy and build the strength of his fellow moslems so they can defeat us and control the world. Why are almost all the arab countries simultaneously involved in rebellions? So the islamic jihadists can grab control, as in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, etc. Chamberlain wouldn’t see Hitler coming, and many Americans are just as blind to the threat of Islam now. But there is a difference. Compared to Islam, the NAZI philosophy was gentle and peaceful.
This is another excuse for Obama to spend more of the money we don’t have. It is another step towards bankrupting the USA! We need to stop this nonsense.
And who determines what Obama foreign policy is? You guessed it no other than Douglas Feith the “brain” behind the Iraq debacle and his neo-con brother in arms Barry Rubin. How clever! No amount of historical revisionism white washes the tremendous destruction these neo-con folks have inflicted upon innocent Iraqi and American families.
Thanks for showing your (anti-semitic) spots. Neo-con is left-speak for Jew. You have no idea what Feith thinks. Check out that Commentary link I left in post #18 above and learn just how upside-down Obama’s foreign/national security policy is, compared to 60 odd years of bipartisanship that preceded this regime. And I’m positive the Iraqis would rather have Saddam et al stepping on their throats (not!). Crawl back under your rock.
Are those innocent families no longer easy prey for Sadaam and his Baathists?
I watched a video that was on RT (I hate RT but…)that seemed to draw a correlation that Libya was trying to unseat the Dollar and implement a gold standard using the Dinar and that is the real reason for attacking Libya. Apparently just before Iraq was attacked, Sadam was attempting the same thing. It has the ring of truth to it even though it is another conspiracy theory. I think not all conspiracy theories are theories. I think many conspiracy theories are promulgated to confuse the issues and obfuscate the truth. The question is which theories are true?
thank god (and al gore) for the internet.
words too have consequences.
like a bumerang
they will come back to hound you.
We are in Libya continuing the long established liberal Democrat support of Islamic terrorism.
Carter — supported creation of terrorist regime in Iran
Clinton — support of islamics in the Balkans & support of islamic terorist organizations in middle east against Israel
Obama — support terrorism by announcing surrender (withdraw) in Iraq and Afghanistan, war on American citizens through pedophiles in TSA rather than investigating Islamics, support of Muslim Brotherhood in ‘Arab Spring’, support of terrorist side in Libya.
The State Department under the iron hand of the Hildebeast and their moronic notion of “nation building” led the cause to support European oil from Libya and the last hurrah of UN peacekeeping forces. Obama was happily ready to cruise to Rio when he was handed the “humanatarian package.” The deal served two Hildabeast coups: it ingratiated her more to Europe, and stuck it to the guy who upended her in the primaries.
If there is a budget to cut or power to curb, look to the parallel president of the world. Nation building should become as obscene a goal as entitlement.
Someone just needs to take Tripoli right?
2 Marine brigades, Ranger Regiment, a French Division and a hell of a lot of Air power. To bad all our battle ships are mothballed. 16 inch guns own cities.
The UN no-fly-zone resolution will let Obama do this right? The written word means whatever we want it to mean.
Sarkozy and Cameron, not Obama started the war. Cameron just won the election but the British economy is bust. There are elections in US and France. Sarkozy missed the chances in Tunusia and Egypt to be on the “right side” of the history. Obama is accused of pussification of the US foreign affairs coming mainly from the neo-cons. So when the opportunity presented itself in the form of Libyan civil war, Sarkozy being most in need of showing his manly prowess, he jumped his mirage to give his old buddy Ghaddafi a bloody nose. Cameron needing a good distraction and a boost to morale Joined Sarko with his Tornados. Obama was no pussy so he pitched in with his very own shock and awe. But to not avail, Ghaddafi is no pussy so he did not fold. In the mean time, the gap with the Socialist rival, Dominique Strauss Kahn was diminished overnight when DSK was handcuffed and scurried to jail for his alleged sex crime. Later it was discovered that it was a sex conspiracy. Bottom line? Ghaddafi is still alive but probably not too long. Sarkozy, unless another sex scandal pops up is history. Cameron is no longer a novice. Obama is no pussy.
I agree. We should not be there. It’s about a grab for oil, not liberation.
Motivation of Britain in Libya: oil
Motivation of France in Libya: oil
Motivation of Obama: hope for cheap victory aimed at winning vote of military types.
Secondary goal: if he loses the election, the democrats and the press can switch blame from democrats to republicans as they did in vietnam when republicans have to decide whether to escalate or accept defeat or stalemate.
If our foreign policy had any brains we would offer Khadafy a cushy resort where he could live out his life in luxury. Then he might leave power. Instead we allow announcement that if he leaves power he will be tried and probably killed. I guess our president believes that will induce his surrender.
You’re right. If surrendering is certain death, what does he have to lose by fighting? Of course, everyone thought he doesn’t stand a chance, so they could afford making such statements. They thought they’d pull a Saddam on him, but Gaddafi said “no go”. They were probably right that he doesn’t stand a chance, but how long will it take and how many people will die in the process?
Obama’s foreign policy seems incoherent and random. He cannot justify the entire mess of his foreign policy by stating any goals or directions, because it is all contradictory. It appears that he just picks out somebody or some group to listen to. At the head of his pecking order, it seems, are the Arab states, the Arab street, the Muslim states, and the Muslim street, not necessarily in that order. His pollsters are in there high up also because he wants to be re-elected. In the case of Gadaffy, who had many enemies and few friends, the decision to try to assassinate Gadaffy was easy, because nobody important would object. He got cover from the Arab League, and additional cover from the UN. He didn’t consult Congress because he has contempt for the Constitution.
Your last sentence is accurate and on the point. The President in more ways than one has shown his contempt not only for the Constitution but for anyoone but himself. He is egoist par example.
“Why Is the U.S. in Libya?”
Beats me.
But, as long as we’re there, we might as well destroy the Libyan government as payback for Lockerbie (and other terror attacks…and also to make sure they don’t do it again).
Don’t think the little boy who would be c-in-c is up to it though.
Why is the US in Libya? Why was the US in Vietnam? Why was Obama dubbed by the establishment Media the “New Kennedy”? How successful was Vietnam in deconstructing the US. Does anybody really believe all this has not been engineered for a very long time by the “Progressives”? The latest excursions as endgame, flaunting their successes in their long cold civil war against the Constitution and the rights protected in that Law of American citizens. Members, fellow travellers and useful idiots do not call it International Communism because it fits a rock backing.
Why is Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. The same Hillary Clinton who introduced a national centrally controlled health care system during the Advent to the Millenium. The same Hillary Clinton so enraged by the loss for the “Democrats” of the election of 2000 – the Millenium, a symbolic date for CHANGE – that she announced the loss was the effect of “that vast right – wing conspiracy”. The loss of THAT election so traumatic that Nancy Pelosi, unable to contain her rage vowed revenge. Which revenge she apparently savoured in her triumpant march after passage of Obamacare, AGAINST EXPRESS wishes of a major part of the citizenry.
“Progressives”,in the “revolution of the 1960s”, calling themselves liberals/democrats,insinuating into policy echelons of all civic institutions: Law, propaganda,e.g PBS and education. They already owned the establishment Media throughout the West. To set up systems for their arrogant self importance — THEY know best how all Americans should live their lives. And they have the powers to assure their control freakishness is institutionalised even further. By extension they know best how inhabitants of sovereign independent nations – members in good standing in their favourite international body the UN – should live their lives. Voila Vietnam, Voila Libya, Yemen and who knows maybe even Korea.
Libya is the stalking horse for Obama and his army’s blitzkrieg through America as Constitutional Republic. Long in the planning and engineering by the Progressives/International Communists/totalitarians/ New Age Emperors.
Obama attacked Libya to help his Muslim Brotherhood friends. They know that Gaddafi was too strong to beat and he would never rollover as did the other countries.So Obama used the US military and the UN to do it for them. He did not seek the approvial of congress because he knew that he would not get it. This is the biggest con ever pulled on the UN and it all started with Obama.
Would you understand your asshole from a gap in the ground?