Well, we now know what would be happening if John McCain (or, most likely, Al Gore) had been elected:
Two senators urged the Obama administration to give “tangible” support to the opposition in Libya in terms of recognizing the opposition as the legitimate government, arming the opposition and establishing a no-fly zone over the North African country.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning from Egypt, as they’ve been on a regional tour over the Presidents Day weeklong recess.
It’s always our job. It’s always our responsibility. Maybe Obama will be different.
I think we already ARE giving them “tangible” support. I read somewhere that we have a couple hundred “defense advisors” over there.
We are not going to war with Libya. Obama’s not going for it, and Democrats in Congress would not stand for it. Yes, those Democrats.
We wouldn’t call it ‘war,’ we’d call it ‘humanitarian intervention.’ Don’t count your chickens yet.
I would really be shocked if Obama intervened militarily, and he’s not done anything to date that’s shocked me. I give Gaddafi a 10% chance of staying in power with no military intervention, and 50% with. I think Obama understands this. McCain and Lieberman, as well as neocons, are just doing their jobs, which is to get their faces on TV.
I don’t mean to be excessively sanguine, but the fact is that I’m optimistic.
Hillary just stated that the U.S. is going to give some kind of “humanitarian” aid to Libyans. I’d like to know what else under that rubric.
US neo-cons urge Libya intervention – Features – Al Jazeera English
the President has handled it well. the GOP is being ridiculous, as usual.
Why not have McCain and Lieberman drop by Tripoli and solve it?
Obama called for Gadaffit to leave. That is excellent in it’s timeing.
I don’t see getting out Marines involved in a bloody war inside of Libya.
This fight is the protesters’. They are fighting to change their country.
McCain and Lieberman don’t give a fig about the Libyan people. They want to play war games and look like heros.
our Marines, because they go in first.
Did they have someone from the Administration on “Face The Nation”? Or was this an oversight?
.
Meanwhile, British Special Forces on the ground near Benghazi in Libya …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
wtf?
I know we’re not getting much good info out of Libya but this doesn’t match other reports. I’m sure in their shoes I’d also want the hell out. But by most accounts it’s the govt forces doing most of the shooting, and it was Gadaffi that referred to the opposition as “on drugs” IIRC.
It reads like the Britons were a gang being menaced by rival gangs. Sloppy writing. Also, probably bullshit, but a breakdown in law and order could lead to some out of control gang activity.
.
I believe it’s chaos in Libya. Gaddafi made sure his miltary structure and leaders were inept to launch a coup d’état. That’s why he has his tribesmen and foreign mercenaries for protection of wealth and life.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
If Lieberman is doing it, it’s obviously empty grandstanding.
If McCain is doing it, it’s trying to position himself as tougher than Obama.
Obama has attacked what Gaddafi values–his overseas assets.
Any air action at this point risks injuring the folks that Lieberman and McCain are saying we are supporting.
Sure looks like an Israeli effort to taint the anti-government forces in the eyes of the Islamic world as being US puppets.
Edited:
🙂
I don’t know that I buy that. I think he just hates Gaddafi and loves war.
It was a joke (hence the emoticon). But the fact that you still had to consider the proposition says a lot…
“It’s always our job. It’s always our responsibility.“
Still with the tiresome whining?
Your job is to finally, for once, stay out of it and let the Libyan/Egyptian/Tunisian/Bahrayni/Yemeni/etc. people engage in their own struggles, and determine their own fates for good or for ill, without imposing your will, or “helping” them to meet your interests in favor of their own.
What reality are you living in?
Haven’t you noticed what’s been going on at the UN. Haven’t you seen all the criticism from almost every quarter that we’re not doing enough, not involved enough? Who do think people are asking to impose a no-fly zone?
You know, I’d think you would at least agree with my questioning the wisdom and the responsibility of the United States injecting itself into this, as that is basically what you are saying as well.
So why am I whining?
Because you seem to be accepting the premise that someone should “intervene” in Libya, and emphasizing that it should be someone other than the US. If instead you’re arguing for no Western or foreign intervention at all, please say so.
And because you’ve posted basically the same post a good half dozen times in recent days.
As a humanitarian matter, if people are being blown to bits by Libyan aircraft, and if the UN determines as a body that intervention is required under its bylaws, then I can accept that. I don’t assume that to be the case, but that’s what the UN is for…to determine what the facts are and what is required. Just don’t ask us to pick winners in their civil war and put our troops and reputation on the line. If the world wants intervention, then pick someone else to do the intervening. We’re busy right now.
Ah yes! People are getting blown to bits by Libyan aircraft, which calls for someone – preferably the UN, or perhaps NATO, or some other Western country or body of countries – to send their own aircraft in to blow to bits their own fair share of people. At least that is how it usually works, and it’s so very helpful, isn’t it?
And in the meantime, Israel regularly blows people to bits by the hundreds in Palestine, and Lebanon, the United States blows people to bits daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, and no one feels compelled to intervene. We do love our double standards, don’t we?
It does seem that it might be polite to shoot down some of that expensive hardware we’ve immorally sold to assholes like Gadaffi if it’s being used against the population and is a serious threat – which it’s not clear it is.
I wouldn’t ask the US to do it though: seems to have been the Europeans that sold the aircraft, so it’s only fair that we should have to do the heavy lifting on shooting them down.
According to globalsecurity.org, the Libyan air force consists of Migs and Mirages. The Migs are probably from the Cold War era.
It is never polite to kill people, even when they are flying hardware you have immorally sold to their asshole dictator. In any case, I don’t believe that the U.S. has sold military planes to Libya.
More importantly, it never ends with just shooting immorally sold hardware out of the air, and it almost never begins with just that. Military violence for “humanitarian” reasons is a contradiction. Increasing military violence by adding one’s own makes a humanitarian situation worse, not better.
And equally as important, powers who intervene to aid one side or another always require a quid pro quo, which is always to serve the interests of the “assisting” party at the expense of the recipients of the assistance. Let the Libyans have their struggle, and determine their own fate just for once, please.
Not part of the whining, but there has also throughout been the explicitly and implicitly expressed belief that not only must there be outside intervention in each of the cases (Tunis, Egypt, Libya, etc.), but that said intervention should come from whatever countries have the most interests at stake.
As usual we are seeing the deep and pervasive underlying belief that Arabs are incapable of correctly managing their own lives without the “helpful” intervention of self-interested outside (preferably Western) powers. We are also seeing, of course, the underlying belief that self-interested (preferable Western) powers have not only the duty but the right to intervene in Arabs’ internal affairs.
I just finished reading a very interesting little book by Prof Fred Halliday titled 100 Myths about the Middle East University of California Press. In Myth 99 he addresses myths regarding reform in the Middle East. He ends by stating that the historical record suggests “that any such project [for reform] needs to be generated from within the region itself and may take rather longer to bear fruit than the attention span of external administrations and their speechwriters”. I would add that reform projects need not only to be generated from within the region itself, but to be undertaken independently and without outside interference within the region and by the people of the region, and that the United States, including well-intentioned people like BooMan, need to stand back and allow other people to evolve their own systems. It is called self-determination, of course.
I don’t believe that Arabs are incapable of anything that human beings are capable of doing. I would say that the particular borders of many Arab states present difficulties in getting the kind of consent that is needed to have open government that can be replaced through periodic elections and that respects all basic human rights. Whether it’s Lebanon or Iraq or potentially Syria or Bahrain, there are some demographic, ethnic and/or religious obstacles that are hard to overcome. That’s one reason that I’ve always thought that Egypt was the best place to start. Iraq, it seems to me, was probably the worst place to start, especially at the point of a gun. But, these obstacles can be overcome. Even in the worst cases, a little border adjustment could make things run a little smoother. We’ve just seen that in Sudan, so it’s not impossible.
One thing that is unfortunate, however, is that the West (and the East, for that matter) depends on much of the region for the energy it needs to power the world economy.
Europe is particularly dependent on Libya’s high quality crude for their diesel engines, and they have major investments there. There will intervene if Qaddafi tries to sabotage those investments and cause an economic crisis that will cost jobs and cause inflation. It is what it is. Obviously, we all like to pretend the world doesn’t work this way, but it does. And, for the most part, the voters are on board with it.
In any case, the situation in Libya is too complicated and we have too little information for us to even know what we want. We want to protect innocent life and the oil sector infrastructure. But in a civil war, we should have no opinion on which tribe, for example, comes out on top. Ideally, no tribe will assert power over the others and we’ll see wise leaders band together in support of free and fair elections. I really don’t know how likely that is to happen, but we can’t make it happen. So, we shouldn’t try beyond lending rhetorical support and maybe even material support if it is merited.
Obama just told Gaddafi to go. Maybe that will make some people happy, but it means nothing to me. It’s not like Gaddafi listens to the United States.
In any case, the Arab world, including Libya, is so interwoven into the Western economy that it will never be as simple as just leaving them to their own devices. Their elites and our elites go to the same vacation spots, invest in the same ventures, send their kids to the same schools. It will always be this way, even when the whole region is “democratic.”
See the post from Geov Parrish just above.
Of course I agree with your questioning the wisdom of the United States injecting itself, although I do believe we have entirely different reasons behind our similar positions in this case.
As for your whining about what is going on in the UN, I would repeat what I said in comments regarding the Egyptian revolution. When you spend as much time, energy, and money as you have committing and threatening military violence, and do as much economic and diplomatic bullying as you have in order to impose yourself on the world as its self-appointed ruler, do not whine and snivel when the rest of the world demands that you accept the responsibilities of your self-appointed role.
What you are saying really amounts to an acceptance of our role. When it’s convenient for you, you demand we carry it out. The rest of the time you tell us it isn’t our role at all. Or shouldn’t be.
Which is it?
This is really at the root of what I am “whining” about. We get this double standard constantly. I’m happy to support our role as the dominant player so long as we do it within the confines of international consensus. But I’d like a lot more power/responsibility sharing.
I argue this with Americans who hoard our power and are afraid to delegate or lose control, and I argue it with people from other countries who don’t invest in the capabilities to carry out the tasks they expect to do so that they can shoulder some of the burden.
I am tired of the economic burden, and I am tired of the thanklessness of it all. And that’s not even taking up how displeased I am with our own elites and how they’ve been running the show.
“What you are saying really amounts to an acceptance of our role. When it’s convenient for you, you demand we carry it out.“
Huh?! Uh – no, “huh?!” does not quite cover it. WTF?! is more appropriate.
In what alternate reality have I ever accepted your “role”, by which I assume you mean your self-appointed role as the ruler of the world?
In what alternate reality have I ever suggested that you should “carry it out”? On the contrary, I have consistently, explicitly, and very clearly stated my view that you have no business “carrying out your role” as ruler of the world.
Specifically in the case of the current wave of revolution in the Arab world, I have repeatedly and adamantly stated that you have no right to “carry out your role” by intervening or trying in any way to affect the outcome. I have repeatedly and adamantly stated that it is the sole right and responsibility of the people of Tunis, Egypt, Libya, The Yemen, Bahrayn, etc. to finally, for once, to determine the fate of their own countries, and to evolve their own systems without interference from you or any other outside forces. There has never been a time in my life that I have not decried the U.S. for appointing itself the ruler of the world, and for enforcing its self-appointed role by means of military violence, economic and diplomatic coercion, and other means. There has never been a time in my life when I have not been disgusted by the hypocrisy and double standard with which the United States carries out its self-appointed role as ruler of the world.
So, do show me, BooMan, where I have ever demanded that you carry out this role that I find so despicable, so destructive; a role that makes the United States the greatest threat to world peace and security, not to mention the security of the United States itself.
I think Booman was using a bit of sarcasm there. If I read him correctly, he doesn’t strike me as all that eager for a US or US-led military intervention. Gaddafi is likely going down regardless at this point. It’s only a matter of when and on what terms (i.e., does he surrender or meet a more violent end?). He won’t be missed.
I’ll go a bit further and say something that I have said elsewhere: we in the US could learn a lot from our counterparts on the streets in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. The people power has been nothing short of inspiring. The dirty little secret that despots (including … certain US governors) need their constituents far more than their constituents need them. Once we regular folk figure that one out, it’s a game changer.
Check out this photo
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/BlogsMainImage/LibyaBlogOutsde.jpg
Hillary is widely thought to be coordinating with externally based dissident groups and a few recent defectors and even those acknowledged internal revolution leaders went out of their way to deny on AJE they had spoken to her. while the people on the ground send the above message. Refreshing. The west may not get to just establish another regime to enforce its own policies while underdeveloping the country in favor of shareholders of big business
Egypt and Libya up for grabs ( / )
I’m flabbergasted. The fix is almost in. Can anyone believe that Lieberman and McCain haven’t personally conveyed Hillary Clinton’s love to the friends of her family: the Mubaraks? Has anyone heard from him since he resigned (very decorously described as stepping down nowadays)? What a lot of work to do. Egypt has to be kept in line with the military presenting some kind of changes that will keep the demonstrators quiet while at the same time satisfying the US insatiable hunger for stability in favor of its most stalwart ally, Israel. Oh, the USA-ians let themselves be played for fools again. Libya needs also to be very gently pushed over the goal line to oust Qaddafi. But you know what?, Qaddafi is a concrete wall and he’s not budging. He will force the US to dirty its hands and exact bloodshed. But don’t worry, Ms Clinton can face the music and impose her will. She’s like some kind of avenging angel, seeking retribution and revenge at every turn. No, Elliot Abrams has told us today on the BBC World Service that if the US doesn’t get involved in Libya ‘someone else’ should. No telling who he’s referring to; at least assistance needs to be sent to eastern Libya, which strikes me as a good suggestion. I never heard him talk before. He has a really oh-shucks-folks, down-home, corn husk, all-American tone and approach. In fact he’s quite seductive. The BBC has nearly only right-wingers commenting on US policy. Where are the progressives?
Eliot Abrama will be on Bloomberg radio tomorrow morning.
Hillary Clinton made a very short statemnt at the beginning of the week and said Livia and then corrected. She has been silent since as far as I can tell.
Gadaffi is losing support from his own supporters.
BBC doesn’t cover US politics well.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but David Cameron’s party is called the Conservative Party–not that Tony Blair was other than Bush’s poodle.
Gaddafi is a concrete wall, but he is not going to survive. And I don’t think the US is going to take the bait of strengthening his regime by moving against it militarily. Not when you can get a NATO country (Turkey) to deliver relief supplies to Miserata, which is isolated between Tripoli and Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte.
And Gaddafi seems to have lost his second biggest airbase and home of a lot of official government planes in addition to military aircraft.
McCain and Lieberman are trying to stampede Obama into doing something stupid. I don’t think that Clinton’s team put in all those hours trying to get an unanimous decision from the UN Security Council only to betray that body once again.
Eliot Abrams, Mr. Iran-Contra, certainly has rehabilitated himself if the BBC is fawning over him. I don’t think the Obama State Department listens to Elliot Abrams.
A million people in Tahrir Square after prayers on Friday week after week says that Egypt is not going to be yanked back. They are not going to be bought off after 30 years of being bought off.
As for where the progressives are, no so long ago they were hammering Obama for dithering and now they are hammering him for intervention that has not yet occurred.
This progressive is seeing new trends unfold. People on the ground creating more stability through self-organization than their dictator could through repression. Stability and democracy is more attractive for American national interest than stability without democracy, despite significant intervention by the US to create the latter. The framing of this movement as the Middle East’s 1989 is likely not far wrong. In that analogy, Egypt is Poland and Libya is Romania on steroids. Saudi Arabia is Russia. Iraq is Hungary, and Iran might be Belarus. The question marks are Jordan, Morocco, Syria, the UAE, Oman, and Bahrain. Can the current leaders get ahead of the curve on real changes?
You will likely see the European Union, Turkey, and the UAE move quickly to provide relief to Libya. The US will probably be working behind the scenes to ensure that the UN Security Council sanctions against Gaddafi and his close supporters are enforced wherever Gaddafi has assets and to get Arab and sub-Saharan African countries to intercept flights carrying mercenaries to Libya. And then let events move forward.
You’ve thought that through better than I have. According to the plans, then, Qaddafi has no way out. He’s toast, I suppose you could say.
Travel ban. Losing means of air transport. Assets in most European countries, including Switzerland, and in the US seized. Only two leaders sticking up for him: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Even China voted for sanctions, and you know they are real skittish about any infringement of sovereignty. And the US voted for a referral to the International Criminal Court, which the US does not yet recognize.
It’s a matter of time.
that the western powers are currently trying their best to reposition for maximum advantage and leverage in whatever remains of the arab world they have for so long used money, weapons and (traitorous) dictators to govern for the advantage of western companies and their (odious to the region) foreign policies. Im sure the are currently doing deals with any defecting members of the current regimes to reinstall dictatorship light with a touch of democracy unless it means anyone rejecting anything Israel vetoes. Im sure the “defectors” (some would call them opportunists) are very willing to call for no fly zones and intervention and will find willing allies or controllers in the likes of McCain etc and of course the representatives of big oil etc who wont want to see any populist governments elected that may want to reconsider contracts and renegotiate them in favor of the people and the country rather than the shareholders.
A new battle for balance in the arab world is on. It just remains to be seen whether the balance will be one achieved by the peoples of the countries in their interests or influenced and manipulated by outsiders to retain something as close to the current status quo as possible.
You seem to ignore another possibility. The new order of dictatorship or democracy lite, depending on how you look at it, will be arranged and presented by insiders, that is, natives of the countries involved, in connivance with outside, that is, western, interests. This is the most likely outcome. What will be the consequence of cornering Qaddafi like a rat, I wonder? Israel did it to Arafat, with approval of its ‘allies’, of course. Imagine what it’s going to be like when the Saudi’s turn ever comes!
Oh I wouldnt ignore that at all but would add those inside likely to do that are already positioned as western puppets. They ten to be the ones that see the writing and defect first, or get tipped off by their western intelligence (sic) handlers.