Rob Andrews on Libya: Asking the Hard Questions

Libya (2.50 / 2)

Pres. Obama's stated objective is "...to prevent a humanitarian crisis..." .Rob Andrews' assertions seems to presume that Obama is being less than completely honest. I'm willing to take the Pres. at his word for now. It's all been said before about Andrews. He not only supported the Iraq invasion, he helped write the resolution and get support for it. Once again, he is curiously aligned with the Republicans.  

mmgth

---

by: mmgth @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 03:29:57 AM UTC

If that's the case.... (0.00 / 0)

.... that the presidents objective is to prevent a humanitarian crisis, then i am sad to say he's not succeeding.  And furthermore, i don't think it's worth our troops and money to intervene in this crisis.  

activist for hire.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 10:12:22 AM UTC

A better way (3.00 / 1)

It seemed to me, when the "rebels" were begging for a no fly zone that we could have used our AWACs that were present to jam Libya's communications (radar, military comms, etc.).  This is still possible.

The insurgents did not ask for ground strikes; they made it clear they would take care of that on their own.  

The shooting of 6 friendly civilians while rescuing the downed crew of the fighter jet just messed things up.  If we had limited our role to downing any Libyan planes and copters in the air as requested and left the ground fighting to the insurgents we would have a clear mission that leveled the playing field without getting over-involved.

---

by: parnell44 @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 14:38:14 PM UTC

Yes... (0.00 / 0)

but you can't enforce a no fly zone with anti-aircraft batteries on the ground. They had to be removed first.


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 15:26:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Priorities (4.00 / 1)

While the House is busy gutting one domestic plan after another, including funding for cancer research and screening, in the Federal budget, how can we afford the millions that each cruise missile or downed aircraft costs? As for the motives, they would seem more genuine had this latest military adventure been embarked upon when, weeks ago, it might have been more effective.

As it stands, the rebels now find themselves with their backs to the wall and unable to take advantage of the West's intervention. I suppose this whole exercise may be a way for Sarkozy to rescue his reputation after the scandals concerning France's cozy relationship with Tunisia's ousted Ben-Ali. But why we should be pulled into this at a time we can ill afford it and at a stage in the game when it is less effective has yet to be explained? And all this without raising the obvious hypocrisy of our sudden about-face on Qaddafi, the fact that we've waited until the rebellion affected oil prices, or the fact that Congress as a body was not even consulted. The terrible sense of priority this episodes illustrates is reason alone to question our involvement.

---

by: Alex @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 15:59:54 PM UTC

better late than never, I guess (0.00 / 0)

I agree that the Obama Administration should have responded far sooner with a far more serious threat of force that might have made the use of force unnecessary.  However, I am not sure that all of the flaws inherent in this response make the response itself unjustified.

Since these pro-democracy movements began to flare throughout the Middle East, I have felt that what is lacking in the Obama Administration is a doctrine that can be a applied to what is undoubtably going to be an ongoing and increasingly complex situation throughout the region for the rest of Obama's current term if not the years to follow.

Obama should have a vision for what a regionalwide transition from dictatorship to democracy should look like as well as standards of behavior on both the sides of dictators and insurgents and future democratic governments that desire the support of the United States.

I think that such a vision would also enable international actors like NATO and the UN to present cooperating or competing visions that will hopefully yield a cohesive and coherent international policy.  Or is such a thing too much to ask?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 19:06:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]