rickyp wrote:And it can take the form of limiited responses that change over time.
For instance: Its perfectly desirable to intervene to stop a genocide now. We can worry about the permanancy of this later. But as an immediate goal stopping a genocide today is good enough.Are you unhappy that Ghaddaffi was stopped from butchering the inhabitants of Ben Ghazzi?

This is emerging as the stand-by for defending our actions in Libya...and man it takes me back.

I remember the days of my youth when I was wrapped in my comfortable soma-blanket of sensibilities. Congratulating myself every day for the evils I hadn't done, the scumbag groups I didn't support, the rotten theories I didn't subscribe to...

And I expected praise for not doing those things too. Daily praise for being such a good egg on the side of light and goodness. Luckily I belonged to a group of like-minded swells and we gave each other the recognition we thought we had earned. Every day was full of victory. What a happy, empty, time that was...

I agree that every day a massacre doesn't happen in Behghazi is a victory. Preventing that negative is certainly worthwhile. But the successful defense of Benghazi for a few days should be a chapter in a book, not the whole story in and of itself. I'll offer a "well-done" one time for the defense thus far. But further praise is reserved for those who fix the underlying problems. Accolades go to those who produce positives, not just prevent negatives.

I will mourn the people of Benghazi if there is a massacre there...and will not mollify myself with a shrug shortly thereafter and say "well, at least they had a few extra months of life thanks to NATO...we rock!"

My point in brief: Military intervention should include proactive, not just reactive, actions and especially goals.

It depends on your definition of the word "it". Yes, I agree with you that we should include all costs and all benefits.
Whether the Iraq intervention was better for the Iraqis is an open question. It was not better for the US as far as I can tell. We don't know yet on Libya.

(This was in response to Min X's post a few posts back)

Steve here's the actual phrase I was responding to when I referenced the 1996 massacre of 1200 political prisoners by Ghaddaffi. (Which you somehow read as 96 prisoners.)

archduke your source claims that the only reasons for believing an impending massacre by Ghaddaffi is the one quote must be ignoring all the other evidence.

What I was responding to was Archdukes reference of a critic who was attempting to frame Ghaddaffi's threats of a massacre in Ben Ghazi as unreal. Or not likely to be acted upon. I wasn't attempting to justify every action or non-action by outside nations in Libya's gruesome past 35 years, nor in any of the hundreds of examples where interventions have failed to materialize. I was making a very limited point about one critics unreasonable judgement about Ghaddaffi.

What I think you fail to realize is how closely you agree with Obama. He also, quite obviously doesn't think the US can or should intervvene in every ugly situation or with every tyrant around the world. He's acting situationally in consort with allies and with the intention of limiting the risk while hoping for a positive outcome without a large commitment of resources.
He's basically acting like a non-imperial nation that doesn't feel it has the means nor is required to be the worlds cop. But, still does have a moral imperative, and should act in its own self interest as well,.
The only difference between you and he is that you'd have stood by while Ghaddaffi repeated the rape of Nanking in Ben Ghazi. He didn't. It may still end badly, but, it may still end well. Without an intervention I think we can 100% guarantee that it would have ended badly for many in BenGhazzi and for the aspirations for genuine self determination and democratic government in Libya. The question for critics of the intervention is, "why isn't the avoidance of this worth the current cost?"

A lot has changed since the invasion of Iraq with your country. You amassed 8 significant budget and trade deficits under Bush, and the world economic crash and the enormous deficits of the recovery. You've witnessed the enormous human cost in Iraq and AFghanistan, and the failure to achieve a story book ending in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All of that is evidence that the Imperial US Is a thing of the past. It didn't work out that well and you can't afford it any more.
That means that foreign policy aspirations have to be scaled down, and that the desire to control specific situations when American self interest dictates is lessened.
And even during the expansive use of power by Bush, its never been possible to force pax Americana on every trouble spot.
I thought you'd generally appreciate cautious intervention rather than full gunboat style.
I thought you'd rather appreciate compelling anxious allies to make real contributions rather than symbolic measures. (see Iraqis coalition of willing..)
These are all the signs of a realist who takes the idea of military intervention seriously. At the same time he's no isolationist, willing to damage long term alliances or surrender the ability to provide any substantive support for the aspirations of people seeking self determination when it is genuinely requested...

A lot has changed since the invasion of Iraq with your country. You amassed 8 significant budget and trade deficits under Bush, and the world economic crash and the enormous deficits of the recovery. You've witnessed the enormous human cost in Iraq and AFghanistan, and the failure to achieve a story book ending in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All of that is evidence that the Imperial US Is a thing of the past. It didn't work out that well and you can't afford it any more.
That means that foreign policy aspirations have to be scaled down, and that the desire to control specific situations when American self interest dictates is lessened.
And even during the expansive use of power by Bush, its never been possible to force pax Americana on every trouble spot....

and yet you insist America SHOULD interfere in Libya?
Can you understand my confusion with your position?

tom

and yet you insist America SHOULD interfere in Libya?
Can you understand my confusion with your position?

I understand you confuse easily.
And yes, I think the US/allied intervention in Libya is called for, and that it should be as limited as possible, and that the allied forces should be made to step up and share the costs and - if things go badly - blame.
Mostly because intervention prevented a genocide and because a limited intervention may have outsize rewards to the risk.
And because I firmly believe in the right of self determination and the power of democracy to establish stable nations that tend to advance the evolution of social justice and prosperity. In this I agree with George Bush.
I just don't believe democracy can be imposed on people without a generational investment.
Bush's neocons thought Iraq was going to be easy. Obama is afraid that Libya will be hard.
Bush was using American power (paid for by the grandchildren of his taxpayers) to project power and directly influence the future of an occupied country . Obama is using power as a last resort and only when others have contributed to the limited mission, and hoping that left to their devices Libyans will win out and make wise choices. (alright he's still paying for the military with budget deficits but at least he's not committing to an expensive occupation.)
The rewards of Bushes Iraq adventure are miniscule compared to the cost. I think the reverse could be true in Libya. But even if it fails and Ghaddaffi survives, the costs havn't been huge. (And the US has 30 billion of Ghaddaffi's money frozen...so there's that)

rickyp wrote:. . . I was responding to was Archdukes reference of a critic who was attempting to frame Ghaddaffi's threats of a massacre in Ben Ghazi as unreal. Or not likely to be acted upon.

And, the truth is we don't know. In going back 15 years to a time that we didn't have the whole world focused on him, before we ousted the Taliban and Saddam, you are comparing apples and oranges.

We also don't know if there will be a net savings of lives. The way this is going, we will either be there for many years or we will leave and be witnesses to whatever then takes place.

What I think you fail to realize is how closely you agree with Obama. He also, quite obviously doesn't think the US can or should intervvene in every ugly situation or with every tyrant around the world. He's acting situationally in consort with allies and with the intention of limiting the risk while hoping for a positive outcome without a large commitment of resources.

Situationally? So, what makes Libya a more dire situation than any number of others? Because Ghaddafi is a bad man? Welcome to the Middle East!

We are very likely to see mission creep. Why? History. You cite history, well, history is on my side. The US doesn't gracefully exit very often.

Think Obama will pull out before the election if there's a chance of a mass slaughter? If Ghaddafi can claim victory? After the President's pronouncements about how he has to go? How many points do you think that would cost Obama? He might as well put on a helmet and ride in a tank.

He's basically acting like a non-imperial nation that doesn't feel it has the means nor is required to be the worlds cop. But, still does have a moral imperative, and should act in its own self interest as well,.

This is like Alice in Wonderland. You look at what is clearly a police action and declare it NOT a police action!

steve

And, the truth is we don't know.

So you'd give Ghaddaffi the benefit of the doubt? Just becasue he willingly executed thousands before we shouldn't take his promises of massacre seriously? You are soft on criminals Steve.

steve

Situationally? So, what makes Libya a more dire situation than any number of others?

Not much. But in this case, the ability to intercede was fairly easy. The immediate results fairly predictable and risk free, and the performance of not just willing, not just willing to lead , but begging to lead allied nations in place. I recognize that the US or its allies can't intercede everywhere. But you can pick a limited number of situations where an efficient effective intervention can be accomplished..

steve

You look at what is clearly a police action and declare it NOT a police action!

All right. I'll rephrase. He doesn't feel the US has the means or is required to be the unilateral dispenser of police actions...
Do you think that the US would have intervened if the UK and France hadn't essentially begged for help. Specifically they begged for the Cruise missile capability?

But Ricky,
You complain about Iraq
Sadaam executed thousands of his own people as well,
why is it so different for Gadaffi?

The two situations are so incredibly similar (no not identical) yet you fail to acknowledge them being such and while you like to bring up history, you fail to learn from history.

lastly, again, not learning from history...
You wish to condemn Bush for Iraq and applaud Obama for Libya, but you say the rewards for our actions in Iraq are slim, you also point to Democracy being important, you point to Gadaffi needing to be toppled
....these things would not be possible (nor Egypt or Tunisia) if Bush had not invaded Iraq now would they? It seems you may have some conflict in your logic.

tom

these things would not be possible (nor Egypt or Tunisia) if Bush had not invaded Iraq now would they?

What evidence do you have to suggest that Iraq had anything to do with Tunisia, Egypt or Libya? Or Yemen, Syria, Bahrain etc.?
Most Arabs saw the invasion of Iraq as an attempt to turn Iraq into a client state of the US. That this didn't happen, that Chalabi was not somehow installed, is evidence of the will of the Iraq people wining out over the occupation. The fact that they seem to have adopted a govenrment more closely aligned with Iran simply suggests that what Bush thought was possible in Iraq, wasn't.
Witness the complete self reliance by the Egyptian revolutionaries. Same can be said in Yemen, etc.
In fact he only place where the opposition forces asked for help was Libya and there because they faced imminent massacre
The Arab world did not welcome the invasion of Iraq Tom. It wasn't what they looked to as a model for their rebellions. American forces in Iraq have had zero impact on any of the ongoing rebellions or revolutions. Or if they have, its actually negative. In that Bahrain protestors were put down by Saudi forces apparently with the blessing of the US who have a base in Bahrain.


Tom

Sadaam executed thousands of his own people as well,
why is it so different for Gadaffi?

Yes Sadam did execute many political opponents. That is what Abu Ghraib was originally purposed. However, Most of the executions actually ocurred during periods when he was an ally of the US. At the time of the Invasion there was no significant resistance to his regime inside Iraq. (The khurds were already protected under a no fly zone and semi-autonomous) He wasn't poised to crush an active violent resistance to his regime from within. He hadn't made specific threats of genocide to this non-existence resistance. And the non-existent resistant weren't bleeding for the USo invade. Only Ahmed Chalabi. And he was in Washington, trying to avoid Jordanian extradition requests.
Why is the intervention in Libya so significantly different? Aren't we discussing that on another thread?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=244&start=75

Well, it sounds like the Military rulers of Egypt are getting ready to fire on the people in Tahir Square. Gov't told them to go home, they said no. Gov't said they would use force, they have blockaged themselves into the square with burned out vehicles. .....yeah that military gov't is going to hold fair elections and give up power.

what evidence do I have?
I see a history of almost nothing happening in that region for hundreds of years then suddenly it happens. Coincidence?
Hardly, what evidence have YOU that this is not a direct result? History is not on your side now is it?

Bush had claimed democracy will break out in the mideast, he was laughed at for saying that and while they have a very looooong ways to go, those first several steps have already been taken.

tom

I see a history of almost nothing happening in that region for hundreds of years then suddenly it happens. Coincidence?

Wow. Thats indepth analysis.

tom

Hardly, what evidence have YOU that this is not a direct result?

Perhaps you missed this statement. Most Arabs saw the invasion of Iraq as an attempt to turn Iraq into a client state of the USIf most Arabs see the invasion of Iraq as this ...how would it inspire them to take entirely independent action to move for democracy?
As well, during the invasion and subsequent occupation and even unto today the US was supportive of the regimes that the various democratic groups are rebelling against. Why the Bahraini protestors say this:
[quote]This is the situation we're facing," explained Nabeel Rajab, President of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

"We are not only facing a regime and neighbouring powers, but American influence as well. They either do not want to see change or only slight changes that do not give people real democracy because the monarchy might lose power. Everyone sees the US double standards very clearly now. They see Gaddafi hitting people and the US strike back. But here they even bring in foreign armies who don't believe in democracy and killing people on streets and the US does nothing. It is a big mistake the Americans are making, losing people, losing the faith of the streets."[/quote
]source: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/op ... 85390.html

Now we've done the hypocrisy thing on this board before. And I acknowledge that all democratic governments act hypocritically at times. But this notion that the invasion of Iraq opened the way for the democratic awakening is nonsense.
For that to happen:
- the current rebels would be using Iraq as a symbol in their demonstrations and statements. Ain't happening.
- the rebels would be referring to Bush or perhaps Obama and the US as inspiring their aspirations. AIn't happening.
- The rebels would be inviting the US and the rest of the West to come to their aid. Except for Libya, and there only when calamity appeared likely, was that request made. (Prove me wrong on this Tom. Find something in the Arab press or somewhere in the leadership of the rebellion that actually refers to the Iraq invasion as an inspriation..)

This Arab awakening probably owes more to the Internet and the opening of communciations in the region than anything else. If there is a great influence for the awakening perhaps its Qatar and its foundation of AL Jazeera... The great power of ideas, expounded on by their fellow Arabs.
But Bush and the invasion of Iraq? Give yourself a shake. All that did was make the average person on the street even more sceptical of the West than they were before the invasion.

rickyp wrote:Perhaps you missed this statement. Most Arabs saw the invasion of Iraq as an attempt to turn Iraq into a client state of the USIf most Arabs see the invasion of Iraq as this ...how would it inspire them to take entirely independent action to move for democracy?

Wow! That's "in-depth analysis!" It's a poll done by ricky wherein he interviewed 600 likely rickies. It doesn't get more reliable than that!

Now we've done the hypocrisy thing on this board before. And I acknowledge that all democratic governments act hypocritically at times. But this notion that the invasion of Iraq opened the way for the democratic awakening is nonsense.

Was this the second question posed to 600 rickies?

Please cite all of the Arabic democracies and the massive democracy movement before Iraq fell. What dictators were on the ropes?

I'm not saying Iraq caused this. I am saying you have less than zero evidence to the contrary.

For that to happen:
- the current rebels would be using Iraq as a symbol in their demonstrations and statements. Ain't happening.

An argument from silence, particularly in an instance that would lead to crediting the US among the Arab people, is not a very strong argument.

- the rebels would be referring to Bush or perhaps Obama and the US as inspiring their aspirations. AIn't happening.

Ditto. Short of going to Kuwait, you won't find a majority of any Arab country supporting the US.

This Arab awakening probably owes more to the Internet and the opening of communciations in the region than anything else.

There may be truth to this, but it's dubious that you can prove it--as you insist Tom must prove something else.

When your best argument is something that seems to be missing, in your opinion, you've not got much. So, you put three different spins on virtually the same argument, tied them in a bow, and dared Tom to refute what you cannot prove.

Lame.

Now, if we're going to try and prevent massive loss of life, shouldn't we prioritize Mexico--instead of Libya? Isn't Mexico a worse situation and more critical to our security? Can't our "powerful" allies handle Libya?

I do not propose the Iraq invasion caused this but I can not say it did not either.
One thing I CAN say however is Bush claimed Democracy would spring up in the middle east, liberals laughed at that statement yet, gee, here we are with democracy springing up in the middle east. Maybe, just maybe Bush was right after all? You simply can not deny that statement was not correct and you can guess for other reasons why, all I know is what he said (and laughed at) is coming true and liberals don't like it one bit do they?