Support NeoGAF

[Dan]

OK, but be honest about it.

It's pretty much right there in the speech, it's just not explicit.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Man, this guy can give a hell of a speech.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

Much more refreshing to have Obama so blunt about the rest of the world having to help out. Whether that happens remains to be seen, but at least it's at the forefront of the discussion.

 

[Zeke]

so nice to have a president that can deliver a speech again

 

[SoulPlaya]

It's pretty much right there in the speech, it's just not explicit.

I'll admit that he alluded to it, but that's not enough for me. I'm just someone who places a high deal of stake on honesty. He could have come out and just said, "We're doing it for oil", and ended the speech, and I would have less of a problem with the speech than this. To say however, that the US doesn't ignore massacres when peaceful protesters are being assaulted, seemingly with US consent, and to say that the military action in Libya is not about regime change. It's BS.

 

[thefro]

I'll admit that he alluded to it, but that's not enough for me. I'm just someone who places a high deal of stake on honesty. He could have come out and just said, "We're doing it for oil", and ended the speech, and I would have less of a problem with the speech than this. To say however, that the US doesn't ignore massacres when peaceful protesters are being assaulted, seemingly with US consent, and to say that the military action in Libya is not about regime change. It's BS.

Do you think it's practical to go to war with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?

That's the difference.

 

[RustyNails]

Really good speech. Pretty much what I've been saying since Day 1, but without the eloquence.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Do you think it's practical to go to war with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?

That's the difference.

Then say that. Don't stand there and say things like "The US doesn't turn a blind eye to massacres".

EDIT: At the very least, verbally condemn it.

 

[Dan]

I'll admit that he alluded to it, but that's not enough for me. I'm just someone who places a high deal of stake on honesty. He could have come out and just said, "We're doing it for oil", and ended the speech, and I would have less of a problem with the speech than this. To say however, that the US doesn't ignore massacres when peaceful protesters are being assaulted, seemingly with US consent, and to say that the military action in Libya is not about regime change. It's BS.

See, I don't think that's true, per se. The presence of oil is no doubt one of, if not the, biggest reason why we pay attention to Libya, but it's not the direct motivation here. It's more of a pre-existing condition. I know a lot of people like to ignore those kinds of distinctions, but I think they're important and true.

 

[SoulPlaya]

See, I don't think that's true, per se. The presence of oil is no doubt one of, if not the, biggest reason why we pay attention to Libya, but it's not the direct motivation here. It's more of a pre-existing condition. I know a lot of people like to ignore those kinds of distinctions, but I think they're important and true.

Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I'm not saying that's the only reason (though, I will argue that is the main reason we have "interests" in Libya). I was just trying to make a point about how much I value honesty.

 

[Dan]

Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I'm not saying that's the only reason (though, I will argue that is the main reason we have "interests" in Libya). I was just trying to make a point about how much I value honesty.

Fair enough, gotcha.

 

[RustyNails]

Oil definitely pays a role in our strategic interests. After all, its Oil that finances our military machine. But like Dan said, it was sort of like a pre-existing condition. A massacre in Banghazi was clearly something that would have messed up the world.

 

[JayDubya]

Man, this guy can give a hell of a speech.

Yes, speeches full of so much rich, creamy shit (double-churned for that extra hypocrisy flavor).

a) It wasn't in our national interest to intervene. We don't have a "strategic interest" either.

b) He already committed to regime change before he set the task of pretending he didn't say it and having his flunkies say it wasn't policy. Too bad, because that was at least reasonable; if we're going to get involved, the bar should be at disabling the man's ability to hurt his own people or we might just be at this again later. But now we're not worried about regime change, of course, only the no fly zone...

c) The NFZ that has stopped being defend the rebelling populace and started being do air strikes to cover the advance of rebel military action... again, if we're going to get involved, this is more reasonable, as is regime change, but we're feigning that this is under the terms of the NFZ, which it isn't. Of course, the we includes not only US forces, which brings us to...

d)

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Long story short? This was, is, and will remain chockablock full of hypocritical bullshit.

 

[Plumbob]

I thought the speech was pretty solid.

Yes, speeches full of so much rich, creamy shit (double-churned for that extra hypocrisy flavor).

a) It wasn't in our national interest to intervene. We don't have a "strategic interest" either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVW6jBbD5Q8&feature=player_profilepage#t=1202s

I mean, I guess it comes down to an unresolvable philosophical difference if you approve of what Obama's doing or not. I think that it's worth using taxpayer dollars in order to save lives, regardless whether those lives belong to people who also paid taxes - or are located in the same nation-state that I am, especially if the costs are low and the benefits are high. Some people think that this policy would be tyrannical. If we can't agree about what our goals should be then there's no conversation to be had.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Oil definitely pays a role in our strategic interests. After all, its Oil that finances our military machine. But like Dan said, it was sort of like a pre-existing condition. A massacre in Banghazi was clearly something that would have messed up the world.

As was said upthread, I'm sure the oil angle is more important to the Europeans than it is to the US.

There are humanitarian reasons to preventing Benghazi from becoming another Srebrenica or Kigali, but there are geopolitical ones as well. My theory: we're not helping the rebels "win" - we're preventing their defeat, so that the protests all over the Middle East don't grind to a halt. This is about more than Libya now.

The fall of Benghazi and the massacre of its citizens would have dealt a serious psychological blow to opposition figures in every country and would possibly have ended the "Arab Spring" as we know it. Everyone's looking at Libya because we expected it to be the next domino after Tunisia and Egypt before the situation there erupted into an impending massacre. (Now it's a civil war, because the intervention has evened the playing field.)

So I suspect that the objective of Odyssey Dawn is not to oust Gaddafi, nor is it to "defeat" him. It's to prevent him from winning long enough for other dominoes to fall - like Syria. Geopolitically, Syria is far more important to the US due to its relationships with Hezbollah and Iran, as well as its proximity to Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the regime there can be every bit as cruel. And while the loyalists in Libya may be able hold off the rebels today, I don't know if they'll want to keep fighting for Gaddafi if other dictatorships collapse and it becomes apparent that the old order is untenable.

 

[Patrick Klepek]

^^ Uh, that

 

[empty vessel]

As was said upthread, I'm sure the oil angle is more important to the Europeans than it is to the US.

There are humanitarian reasons to preventing Benghazi from becoming another Srebrenica or Kigali, but there are geopolitical ones as well. My theory: we're not helping the rebels "win" - we're preventing their defeat, so that the protests all over the Middle East don't grind to a halt. This is about more than Libya now.

The fall of Benghazi and the massacre of its citizens would have dealt a serious psychological blow to opposition figures in every country and would possibly have ended the "Arab Spring" as we know it. Everyone's looking at Libya because we expected it to be the next domino after Tunisia and Egypt before the situation there erupted into an impending massacre. (Now it's a civil war, because the intervention has evened the playing field.)

So I suspect that the objective of Odyssey Dawn is not to oust Gaddafi, nor is it to "defeat" him. It's to prevent him from winning long enough for other dominoes to fall - like Syria. Geopolitically, Syria is far more important to the US due to its relationships with Hezbollah and Iran, as well as its proximity to Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the regime there can be every bit as cruel. And while the loyalists in Libya may be able hold off the rebels today, I don't know if they'll want to keep fighting for Gaddafi if other dictatorships collapse and it becomes apparent that the old order is untenable.

You are right to identify geopolitical reasons as primary. But the US (and Israel) have more to lose from authentic democracy in Arab states than from autocratic dictatorships, especially in Egypt. While it's true that not all Arab dictatorships were aligned with the US, most were. The overriding concern of the West when it comes to the Middle East is control and influence, and authentic democracies are not externally controllable, nor, in the Middle East, would such governments be amenable to the West's interests, given Arab public opinion. The West will, however, try to exert control over the new order taking shape in the Arab states as best it can, and that is the lens through which the West's actions in Libya, an oil-rich country over which it has lacked control and influence for decades, is best understood. I don't think the US/Europe are trying to encourage dominoes to fall, but they are trying to control the result. And, where possible, they will try to prevent authentically democratic governments from forming. It's just the nature of imperialism.

 

[Gaborn]

Hey, here's Joe Biden threatening to impeach Bush if he bombs Iran without getting Congress's permission.

With that said I thought Obama's speech was rhetorically fine. It was just a bunch of lies and vague statements. I still see no reason to think we have any sort of exit strategy. We "transferred command and control to NATO" but we ARE NATO. We're the largest military arm they have.

When Obama listed the things WE would do under NATO he didn't mention anymore bombing runs on Gaddafi's troops but does anyone believe we won't still do it? That we won't continue exactly as we have been? I'm glad the public isn't ready to buy the shit he's selling yet and it's pretty sad that some people ARE buying it.

 

[RustyNails]

As was said upthread, I'm sure the oil angle is more important to the Europeans than it is to the US.

There are humanitarian reasons to preventing Benghazi from becoming another Srebrenica or Kigali, but there are geopolitical ones as well. My theory: we're not helping the rebels "win" - we're preventing their defeat, so that the protests all over the Middle East don't grind to a halt. This is about more than Libya now.

The fall of Benghazi and the massacre of its citizens would have dealt a serious psychological blow to opposition figures in every country and would possibly have ended the "Arab Spring" as we know it. Everyone's looking at Libya because we expected it to be the next domino after Tunisia and Egypt before the situation there erupted into an impending massacre. (Now it's a civil war, because the intervention has evened the playing field.)

So I suspect that the objective of Odyssey Dawn is not to oust Gaddafi, nor is it to "defeat" him. It's to prevent him from winning long enough for other dominoes to fall - like Syria. Geopolitically, Syria is far more important to the US due to its relationships with Hezbollah and Iran, as well as its proximity to Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the regime there can be every bit as cruel. And while the loyalists in Libya may be able hold off the rebels today, I don't know if they'll want to keep fighting for Gaddafi if other dictatorships collapse and it becomes apparent that the old order is untenable.

Well said. In the end it comes down to myriad of priorities. A massacre in Benghazi would have certainly stained the conscious of every decent human being on earth striving for freedom. The way I see it, yes there are strategic (oil) reasons. You have to remember that Obama was criticized heavily by many people (including yours truly) for not being forceful on Libya. Face it. Before Mubarak's downfall, Obama gave 3 speeches. People getting slaughtered in Libya, and only 1 speech from white house. Egypt is probably our most important strategic ally over there, and Libya is maybe in the bottom 10 so it sort of made sense and laid bare America's hypocrisy once more. But the critical point that drove us over the fence was Col. Gaddafi's ultimatum to rebels in Benghazi. It was probably at that point Obama decided he would not have a massacre on his conscious and if I were to make a observation, Obama as a person would have tremendously struggled with it. I don't see it in his personality. I think whitehouse would have sat this one out had the situation in Benghazi not turned dire. Another thing to remember is that USA and EU benefit from status quo in Libya similar to how they benefit with a status quo in Saudi Arabia. An unknown democratic peoples' government would probably divert petro dollars elsewhere. It's a risk that they know but took anyway (in Libya's case).

To be honest, I also see Bush Jr. taking a step like this and even though I dislike him, he would've struggled with the Benghazi situation just as much. Frankly no one wants a massacre on their hands. He probably would have gone solo and break a few UN resolutions and EU treaties or whatever. But it would've been the right thing to do and I'd have commended him for it.

 

[Gaborn]

The AP fact checks Obama's speech. Pretty brutal

WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama's statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.
And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.
Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:
___

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.
The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

___

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.
Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.
The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.
Obama said "we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.
___

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful — yet fragile — transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.
"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again ... that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."
___

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."
Only small numbers of Gadhafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.
At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that."
___

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.
More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.
The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.
Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.
In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."
He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"
Now, such questions are coming at him.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

hot burn.

 

[nubbe]

What is the defected military doing anyways?
It seems as if the rebels can't advance unless the French bombs the shit out of the graffito troops.

 

[HawksEye]

Here is a good article about who the rebels are.

 

[HawksEye]

Misrata is having a big problem with dealing with snipers stationed around the city.

Video showing some of the snipers (Youtube)

 

[Wes]

On a related theme:

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad accepts government's resignation, state TV reports.

 

[adversesolutions]

Lool

 

[ViralMarketingDrone]

Obama had some serious doublespeak going on in his speech.
But I guess people want to be lied to from whoever is the figurehead of the day, be it a cowboy or a peace-prize winner.
It's all the same.

 

[HawksEye]

A - letter - from the opposetion National Council on their vision of a democratic libya.

 

[Wes]

"Richard Norton-Taylor reports that AC-130 gunships and A10 tankbusters, of the kind used in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been deployed by the US."

Woah AC-130s.

 

[Funky Papa]

Those are bad motherfuckers... but why do they need them? Are missiles not enough? I understand they only make sense if they intend to engage large numbers of vehicles at once.

 

[Wes]

Those are bad motherfuckers... but why do they need them? Are missiles not enough? I understand they only make sense if they intend to engage large numbers of vehicles at once.

According to the security editor at The Guardian:

In a dramatic and significant escalation of the assault on Gaddafi's forces, the US has deployed low-flying, heavily-armed aircraft against Libyan armour.

It is a deployment far removed from the initial concept of a "no-fly" zone.

... The aircraft are better suited than high-flying fighter bombers to attack targets in built-up areas without so much risk of civilian casualties, defence officials say.

... The AC-130s, flying from a base in Italy, were requested by General Carter Ham, the senior US general overseeing the operation, and are likely to continue flying over Libya in the coming days as allied forces attempt to increase the pressure on Gaddafi's ground forces, the Washington Post reported.

Which doesn't sound right to me. As you rightly say, these things are monsters.

 

[teruterubozu]

so nice to have a president that can deliver a speech again

3 years in and this is all we have left to say.

 

[Funky Papa]

According to the security editor at The Guardian:



Which doesn't sound right to me. As you rightly say, these things are monsters.

Uh, that bolded quote makes no sense in my mind. Granted I'm no expert, but I don't see how an AC-130, basically a flying platform that fires hails of unguided ordnance, is safer than individually launching some guided missiles. Those things pretty much hose the ground with fire.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Those are bad motherfuckers... but why do they need them? Are missiles not enough? I understand they only make sense if they intend to engage large numbers of vehicles at once.

A-10 is ideally suited for CAP and besides it can take a licking and still remove your ass from the space time continuum. As DrForester said early if you shot it, it just gets made. A130 also is useful against soft and mobile targets.

 

[Wes]

3.32pm – Syria: State television announces the resignation of the president, Bashar al-Assad, and his ministers.

Edit: Was retracted by the origin, Guardian.

 

[thekad]

That is the worst fact check of all-time.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Jesus Christ. Obama has the authority as president to use military force without congressional approval for up to 60 days.

 

[Wes]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon says the military intervention in Libya has cost the United States about $550 million so far, mostly for bombs and missiles.

 

[AlimNassor]

3.32pm – Syria: State television announces the resignation of the president, Bashar al-Assad, and his ministers.

Oh wow.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Oh wow.

But will Syrians be happy with another Shia or do they want a Sunni as President? Or at least have some kind of power sharing government.

 

[Evlar]

Where is this news of Assad resigning? I see reports of his cabinet resigning, but not the president.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Yeah. I'm also reading it's just his cabinet. From what the AP is saying, this will not affect Assad.

Also, Libyan rebels are retreating from Sirte. They're appealing to NATO for airstrikes.

 

[Owzers]

"BIN JAWWAD, Libya – Libyan government tanks and rockets have driven back rebels who attempted an assault on Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte. Opposition fighters fleeing in a panicked scramble pleaded for international airstrikes that never came.

Gadhafi's forces drove the rebels out of Bin Jawwad, a hamlet east of Sirte, on Tuesday. Cars and trucks of the retreating rebels filled both lanes of the highway east to the oil port of Ras Lanouf.

Some fleeing rebels shouted "Sarkozy, where are you?" — a reference to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, one of the strongest supporters of airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces.

There were no international airstrikes in Bin Jawwad during the hourslong battle there, possibly because of overcast skies."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

So how long before everyone openly hates the West again instead of secretly hating them?

 

[Wes]

Yeah. I'm also reading it's just his cabinet. From what the AP is saying, this will not affect Assad.

Also, Libyan rebels are retreating from Sirte. They're appealing to NATO for airstrikes.

Looks like it was retracted from the source I got that line from (Guardian). It now says:

3.32pm – Syria: State television announces the resignation of president Bashar al-Assad's cabinet.

Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Looks like it was retracted from the source I got that line from (Guardian). Apologies.

Treadstone got to their reporter.

Spoiler

Ultimatum reference

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

International community has made very clear they're not trying to win the war for the opposition. Their assistance in stopping Gadhafi's advances weren't a signal for rebels to start their own advance, only to get pushed back.

Am I missing something?

 

[[Nintex]]

Libyans on the ground quite possibly don't have the information about the mission that we have. For the average rebel on the front lines it probably looked like the government forces were getting bombed. I guess the confusion started when 100+ cruise missles rained down on their country.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

That is the worst fact check of all-time.

Less "fact check" in there than "editorial."

 

[Owzers]

How long before they make a movie based on these events?

International community has made very clear they're not trying to win the war for the opposition. Their assistance in stopping Gadhafi's advances weren't a signal for rebels to start their own advance, only to get pushed back.

Am I missing something?

It's a mess.

 

[mentalfloss]

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."