I’m nervous. but so far I am quite proud of how Barack Obama and Robert Gates have resisted calls to get our country overly involved in the situation in Libya. I fear reports of Gaddafi’s demise have been premature. But, probably a much more important consideration than Gaddafi’s fate is the general lack of knowledge about what might follow his regime. I am not concerned about radical Islamists taking over. I don’t think that is likely. I am concerned about no one taking over. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that there are the makings of a functional government that can unite the country waiting in the wings.
For several decades we have dealt with Gaddafi and not seen it as in our national interests to do anything about kicking him out of power. I don’t see how anything has changed. I think Europe has compelling reasons to not want to see chaos in Libya that disrupts their oil supply and gives them an unwanted exodus of political refugees. But that’s basically their problem. They help us out from time to time, so I don’t necessarily object to lending them a hand when they need one, but that support should be at several removes from any direct intervention in Libya.
Secretary Gates has been at pains to say that anyone who puts American land forces in Africa or the Middle East should have their head examined. And he’s telling anyone who will listen that imposing a No-Fly Zone on Libya is a bad idea that we can’t afford and that it will force us to demolish Libya’s air defenses which would kill a lot of people and make it look like we’re going to steal Libya’s oil.
Obama’s been working behind the scenes, but he understands what’s at stake:
“There’s a great temptation to stand up and say, ‘We’ll help you rid the country of a dictator,’ ” one senior administration official said, insisting on anonymity because of the delicacy of the discussions. “But the president has been clear that what’s sweeping across the Middle East is organic to the region, and as soon as we become a military player, we’re at risk of falling into the old trap that Americans are stage-managing events for their own benefit.”
The truth is that Libya really isn’t our problem or our responsibility. It’s all fine for our government to call for Gaddafi to step down. But we should not interject ourselves in what is likely to be a civil war to see who can control Libya’s vast oil reserves.
I’ll keep saying it because it needs to be said. It would be easy for Obama to really screw up his presidency by getting Libya wrong. So far, he’s right on the money.
The truth is that Libya really isn’t our problem or our responsibility. It’s all fine for our government to call for Gaddafi to step down. But we should not interject ourselves in what is likely to be a civil war to see who can control Libya’s vast oil reserves.
if Obama resisted the Pentagon’s calls to STAY involved in Afghanistan?
Three more years of throwing lives and money down that sinkhole.
Yes. Yes, I would very much like to see that.
Carl Sagan was wrong. That is not the number of stars. That is the amount of money we are wasting killing Afghan and Iraqi children.
Oh, I don’t know that there’s nothing the US can or should do.
It’s entirely possible that Gaddafi is willing to step down peacefully if he’s offered his own reality TV show, for example.
Okay, okay, Europe could do that too. Not France or Germany though; even Gaddafi would be aware that the result would be talky, boring and unpopular.
Italy, however, is a different story. Amazingly, Berlesconi may actually wind up playing a useful role for world peace.
not bad, but I’m thinking an Albanian show would be more fitting his punishment.
I was watching CNN the other day and some Republican operative was urging Obama to go into Libya big time. I’m so glad my president isn’t that stupid.
Libya is Europe’s problem, plain and simple.
No. Libya is the Libyan peoples problem. The EU should stay well out of it as should the US. In Libya the EU has dirty hands already with its deals that supported Gaddafi.
And the U.S. and Obama support Bahrain’s tyrant to the very end:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703409904576174830538031352.html
We have no real choice. It’s collateral damage for our decision to invade Iraq. It reduces our flexibility in Bahrain. We’d have the same problem in the U.A.E., and Oman. It’s the right call in a very bad situation.
Should have stayed out of that one too. OPffering any level of support even mninimal just reverbrates and increases the negative image
I agree in the sense that Mubarak left relatively quickly and relatively peacefully. That said, the weight of everything is against Gaddafi. I am surprised at how quickly the opposition has coalesced an army. Gaddafi is going all-in, and it will be a mess. Much has been made, however, of his use of mercenaries, and while we can depend on the mainstream media to play up anything that makes Gaddafi look close to toppling so we’ll stay glued to our sets, using mercenaries in a civil war situation is not a long-term strategy for success for the side that uses them. The country is the opposition’s for the taking if they are willing to die in significant numbers for it. Die they will–it is already getting down to that.
As for Obama, he’s not going to intervene militarily. The end result in the process is more likely to benefit the Libyan people as well as his own standing if he doesn’t. Only the far right–i.e., the middle of the Republican party–thinks that events in Egypt make Obama look bad to people in the United States. That, and while Obama is a political figure, he is one that actually does have deeply held beliefs about the world, beliefs that are generally left, even though he made a decision a long time ago that compromise in moving toward those beliefs is the best strategy for achieving them concretely.
I have said before that I voted for Obama not because I felt he would do everything in a way that I wanted, but because he was the most likely that, in critical situations that allowed an opportunity for a decision that was genuinely left (or progressive if you prefer the term), he would take it. Here, by not intervening militarily, he is choosing to serve the Libyan and American people rather than the American military-industrial complex. That’s new for Presidents in the post-WWII period.
Where the government should be focusing its energy instead of on Iran and Libya. Those places where it has leverage.
In Egypt and Tunisia, there are signs that the old regime is regaining strength because the military chose to keep most of the existing ministers in power. There is the very grave danger that when the illusion of the completion of the revolution has taken hold with ordinary Egyptians, the military police and security services will crack down on protest again. Indeed, Amnesty International already has one case from last Friday’s demonstrations of a “leader” being detained. The US still maintains its position of aid to Egypt. It should use that leverage carefully to ease the situation towards meeting the demands of the revolution, starting with removal of the existing ministers and appointment of a politically diverse interim government of technocrats with the power to root the corruption out of the ministries.
In Yemen, it is now clear that Saleh must go; too many people are opposed to his regime for him to govern. The situation is dicey because there is an independence movement in South Yemen that seeks autonomy and al Quaeda of the Arabian Peninsula is operating in small camps in central Yemen. The first is more worrying than the second. Transition to real democracy cuts the legs from under any terrorist movement. The role of the US is to insist that the Saleh government not directly or indirectly (through thugs) use violence to suppress dissent.
In Bahrain, there is a stalemate between the royal family and the protesters. No doubt the royal family thinks they can wait out the protesters; eventually they will have to go home. The US should exert its influence to prevent the royal family from trying to suppress dissent violently and should push for political equality for the Shi’ite majority. In Oman, the situation is reversed. The US should push for political equality of the Sunni majority.
In Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, and Morocco, if the monarchs want to survive, they will have to move rapidly toward severely limited monarchies, such as in the Scandinavian countries, and parliamentary democracies. And fast, no footdragging. All the US can do is point out the folly of trying to have it otherwise.
In Libya, the US should take its cues from a Free Libyan government (when one appears) and from the international community, especially the Arab League and African Union. In dealing with the latter, the US should point out that the ability of countries in the region to respond in unity can make a Western or American response less likely and unnecessary. This is another dicey situation because the heads of states of countries in both organizations are wondering “Who’s next?”
With respect to Iraq, the US should reassert its commitment to leave and leave promptly. And should treat the Maliki government in much the same way that it should treat the Egyptian government. The issue is rooting out corruption in the ministries, the provincial governments, and the district governments. The snap elections that Maliki called will help with this only if they are free and fair.
And with Iran, the US need only apply the standard of criticism that it applies to Israel. Secretary of State Clinton said there is only one standard for human rights. It’s time for her and the Obama administration to walk the walk.
Increasingly, the situation in Israel looks like the Israelis have made a one-state solution inevitable. The US should insist that it not be an apartheid state. The upshot is that the Israelis have made themselves a minority in their own country by trying to grab all of the land. The only alternative is total evacuation of the illegal settlements. The faster the US can move on dealing honestly with the Israeli situation instead of continuing to finesse it, the more stable the Middle East becomes.
I am so feelin’ Robert Gates right now. It’s not difficult to understand why the President reportedly trusts and seeks his advice more than anyone in his administration, 2nd only to Valerie Jarrett. And to think he was the first appointnment (yes, technically hold over) that started liberal whining.
Gates went up against Bush somewhat before Bush left.
Gates is supposed to leave this year. He has done a great job by us and I’m glad Obama kept him.
The 101st Chairborne are all huffing and puffing about Libya and the US Marines going in.
They watch too many movies.
I’ve never understood the rage from the far/professional/firebagger left to the man, he has done everything you could ask of a Democratic President’s SoD: fought to decrease funding to Pentagon, stood up against prolonged or newly ignited wars, and even sticking with the civilian leadership instead of the generals in almost every case I’ve seen. A great choice, and I’ll be sad to see him go.
My sense of the rage is that:
(1) The Department of Justice continues to argue for the unitary executive types of policies that progressives found dangerous during the Bush years. And the President continues to want extension of the PATRIOT ACT and other laws that have essentially suspended the 4th amendment.
(2) We are not yet out of Iraq and seem to be Petraeused-down in Afghanistan. And in both cases the push to get permanent bases seems to have not stopped.
(3) He appeared to respond more to K Street than to the public on the health care bill, and he could not get Democratic unity to put through something that helped on the cost issue (public option, single payer). As a result those Democrats who broke with him essentially lost the control of the House and the Blue Dogs who didn’t lose are still trouble within the caucus.
(4) He appears to concede too much ground before he engages in the hardnosed negotiating with the Republican leadership.
(5) He is a Democrat, not a socialist or Ralph Nader.
(6) He is too willing to offer concessions that hurt those who are already hurting and not effectively get concessions from those who represent the interests of corporations and the wealthy.
(7) He went to Harvard, knows a lot of wealthy movers and shakers, and appears to have lost touch where he came from.
(8) He or his Department of Justice refuses to bring strong accountability to those in the previous administration who broke the law. And in some cases, work to get them off the hook.
(9) He seems to be OK with the detention of Bradley Manning for long periods without charge in conditions that we would complain about if they happened in another country.
(10) The failure to come to terms realistically with what it will take to resolve the mortgage crisis and what it will take to grow jobs. In this, most folks criticize his choice of economic advisers, Secretary of the Treasury, and Chair of the Federal Reserve. And see the same faces that caused the economic meltdown to occur in the first place or who are too removed from Main Street.
Those are the issues that I see raised by the folks you call the far/professional/firebagger left.
I agree with some of them. Others I think ignore the reality of governing large institutions and make the assumption that because he is President he is omniscient and omnipotent, and can rule by decree. And some ignore the limits on the pool of experienced officials available to Democrats who seem only to be able to gain power every other decade. That pool pretty much was limited to folks who were in the Clinton administration or the Carter administration or who had run large state agencies or been a governor.
The negotiating style and the failure to hold the Bush administration accountable are the two most serious in my own view.
I reread your post. About Gates. He has performed as respectful of the authority of the President when the Republican Party has sought to undercut that authority (especially in the military) every way they could.
The far/professional/firebagger left’s rage has to do with:
(1) The Defense Department is a huge agency with serious problems of waste, fraud, abuse, political connections, and ideological capture by the right. There have been no public indications that any of that has changed.
(2) Gates has failed to make the case with the uniformed military that they do not need all the toys that Congress wants produced in the Republican jobs program. The security threats to the United States do not justify defense expenditures that in real terms are equivalent to the expenditures at the height of World War II in absolute terms (as opposed to relative to GDP).
(3) Gates has not been forceful enough with his Republican confreres in Congress about reducing procurement budgets an increasing compensation for the rank-and-file troops. Kabuki fighting is not the same as real fighting. In real fighting you hear the screams of the gored oxen and sacred cows.
Gates gets props for his handling of the repeal of DADT. He however does not get props for allowing the military to blow off the President’s demand for real options on Afghanistan. Pre-wired options that force the President to do what the military wants to do is not compliance with what the President asked for.
The advantage that Gates has is that there were low expectations of his performance. Unlike many other members of cabinet, those expectations were low enough for him to easily meet and exceed them.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The fate of Libya is our problem in one not-insignificant way:
the price of oil.
If there is a disruption of Libya’s ability to pump oil, our economic recovery could go south. Wars have been started over less. Here’s hoping other producers, like the Saudis, can make up the difference . If oil prices look like they are going to go through the roof for an extended time period, Obamas reelection chances could be endangered. Then I would not be surprised to see an amphibious assault on Tripoli in short order. (After all, the marines have done it before, right?)
Lets hope this doesn’t drag on longer than another month or so.
The strategic value of oil is not its effect on the economy, but its effect on military transport and operations. Especially on the Air Force.
Higher prices for oil and gas domestically force alternative energy back on to the agenda and possible marks as tipping point. The Saudis have been paranoid afraid of this possibility for 30 years; they have worked to keep prices low in times of instability. It’s the old drug dealer’s strategy of allowing the addict to maintain the addiction just when he looks likely to quit.
Yes, I can see certain advantages to an oil price shock, not the least of which is the wake-up call you describe. Not too good for the economy in the short term, though. I doubt Obama would stand by and let it happen if a couple of brigades would make the difference. Lets hope it doesn’t come to that. I agree with Booman that the last thing we need is another war in the middle east.
If Democrats could understand the “shock doctrine”, they would use an oil price shock to railroad through the items that move away from oil dependency, like high-speed rail.
What they are likely to do is increase tax breaks for oil companies and demand the President invade Libya.
“the last thing we need is another war in the middle east.
To hell with what you need. The last thing the people of the Middle East need is for you to start another war with them.