rickyp wrote:Thousands are going to die as regimes like Syria fight to suppress their people. Include in this suppossedly friendly nations like Bahrain...What are the priorities and limitations facing the West?
Before the west takes anything else on ... I think we wait till Libya concludes. That is till Ghaffaffi is gone. 4 to 8 more weeks?

Then see where we're at... I doubt a no-fly zone would do anything substantial in Syria.

The conditions on the ground are nothing like the organized resistance in Libya.

The Arab awakening is continuing on a lot of fronts... Women are suppossedly protesting in the UAE regarding driving. Jordan has announed major reforms... Yemen seems to be on the verge of the current regime crumbling..

There may not be a lot of places where limited Western involvement can realistically help. And I wouldn't choose anything more than limited involvement like air strikes.

In a stern rebuke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Friday that the future of the historic NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line combat. The United States won't carry the alliance as a charity case, the outgoing Pentagon chief said.

Some NATO countries bristled, but Britain quickly and heartily agreed.

Gates' assessment that NATO could face "a dim if not dismal" future echoes long-standing concern of U.S. policymakers about European defense spending. But rarely, if ever, has it been stated so directly by such a powerful American figure, widely respected in the United States and internationally.

The remarks, at the close of Gates' final overseas trip, reflect a new reality of constrained American finances and a smaller global reach. . .

Gates spoke for the Obama administration, and his warning Friday was aimed squarely at Europe's priorities.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense," he said.

That assessment may cause Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the United States, on whom they have counted for a large measure of their security for six decades.

It comes on the heels of the withdrawal of one American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction of U.S. troops in Europe.

The U.S. has been the brawn behind NATO since its birth in 1949. But the disparity between strength and allies' investment has only grown wider. . . .

Over the past two years, military spending by NATO's European members has shrunk by about $45 billion — the equivalent of the entire annual defense budget of Germany, one of the alliance's top-spending members.

As a result, the U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% of Likely U.S. Voters feel the United States should continue its military actions in Libya. Forty-two percent (42%) are opposed and 32% are undecided.

I'd have to say things are going really well with this whole "Arab Spring" thing

rickyp wrote:

I'd have to say things are going really well with this whole "Arab Spring" thing

I'll bet it was one of your forebears at Valley Forge saying, "nuts lets quit now."

Egypt's military rulers told human rights advocates Monday that at least 7,000 civilians have been sentenced to prison terms by military courts since Hosni Mubarak was ousted — an astoundingly high number likely to fuel debate over how much the revolution has changed the country.

President Barack Obama spoke passionately in 2007 about the need for Congress to challenge the Bush administration over violating the War Powers Act -- the very charge he is now facing from lawmakers in both parties over U.S. military involvement in Libya.

Back when Obama was a senator, he talked tough on the need for Congress to find "a backbone" and keep then-President George W. Bush in check regarding the legality of the Iraq War.

"We thought we learned this lesson," Obama said during remarks at DePaul University in October 2007.

"After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law -- the War Powers Act -- to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it."

Those sentiments are now being played out by some of Obama's biggest critics on Libya.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) announced Wednesday that they are suing Obama in federal court over the constitutionality of leading the U.S. into war with Libya without seeking Congressional approval. Specifically, their lawsuit challenges the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations -- namely, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to authorize the use of military force abroad.

"With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated," Kucinich said in a statement. "We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies."

The White House responded Wednesday to a congressional outcry over U.S. military action in Libya, saying that President Obama has the authority to continue the campaign even without authorization from U.S. lawmakers.

In a detailed, 30-page report sent to Congress, the administration argued that the U.S. has a limited, support role in the NATO-led bombing campaign in Libya. Because U.S. forces are not engaged in sustained fighting and there are no troops on the ground there, the White House says the president is within his U.S. constitutional rights to direct the mission on his own.

The White House said that the mission has cost the U.S. $800 million as of early June and estimated that a total of $1.1 billion will be spent through the beginning of September.

Ray Jay wrote:I can't fathom Obama's refusal to go to Congress. In the end, I think he would prevail in that Congress would be afraid to be responsible for a Qaddafi resurgence and resulting massacre. Also, with lobbying from Clinton, Pinella, Petraeus, and Gates, Congress would fall into line.

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I can't fathom Obama's refusal to go to Congress. In the end, I think he would prevail in that Congress would be afraid to be responsible for a Qaddafi resurgence and resulting massacre. Also, with lobbying from Clinton, Pinella, Petraeus, and Gates, Congress would fall into line.

That's assuming they would fall in line ans support the action. I wonder about the timing of Gates' retirement being so close to the Libya action. If I recall, he was not a supporter at the beginning.