Posted on 03/11/2011 9:17:59 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
In diplomacy, as in medicine, the cardinal principle in any crisis is to first do no harm. The Obama administration's approach to Libya has violated this principle in at least two respects. Having made matters worse for Libya's democratic opposition, the administration now must be willing to reverse the damage it has done.
First, there's the arms embargo, imposed by the U.N. Security Council with strong U.S. support two weeks ago. Initially advertised as a measure that would weaken the Gaddafi regime by preventing it from acquiring additional weapons, the State Department this week revealed its view that the U.N. embargo also makes it illegal to provide defensive arms to the opposition.
An evenhanded arms embargo might make sense if the Libyan conflict were between two equally armed sides and we were indifferent to which side won. But the Gaddafi regime is infinitely better-armed than the rag-tag opposition that, having freed half the country, now faces a withering counterattack from the regime's artillery and combat aircraft. The Obama administration professes to want the opposition to prevail, but by prohibiting arms transfers to both sides, it has almost guaranteed that Moammar Gaddafi will win a drawn-out conflict. ....
The second Obama administration misstep was its support for the U.N. decision to give the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction to prosecute Gaddafi....he and his lieutenants are left with just two choices: surrender to international justice or fight it out in Tripoli. Clearly they have no interest in surrendering, so Libya is now locked into a civil war that will rage until one side wins. ....
Essentially, what the United Nations has done in Libya is deny Gaddafi any attractive alternative to fighting to the death with his opposition, while locking in Gaddafi's overwhelming military advantage in that fight.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Are you going to join in the debate in any of the threads you post, or just continue with your hit and run posting?
You have yet to offer any substantive argument for why we should commit American blood and treasure to this fight.
I happen to think relative to the rebels - whose every other utterance is Allah Akbar - Gaddafi is the lesser of two evils. However, this particular Obama play was just bone-headed, if his intent was to get Gaddafi to step down. The usual way to persuade dictators to step down is to let them retire abroad with a hefty chunk of his ill-gotten gains. To threaten him with a life of penury in a foreign prison for the rest of his days is a good way to get him to dig in his heels. I wish I could say that Obama is an imbecile, because having an imbecile for president would be an improvement over Obama. As it stands, we can only aspire to an imbecile's level of competence.
I ain’t argued whichu lately neither... hmm...
Bfl.
Check the last 3 articles posted by Tailgunner. You will see my posts.
Nah. You could tell me what the issue is however.
You take this out here. So say it.
I agree, I was on a ship in the Med the last time we did that.
Can't we just sell both sides weapons until they run out of oil, gold, jewels...whatever? The longer they continue shooting at each other the better.
LOL!!
Apparently the rebels never understood that the phrase ""Hi! We are here from the government and we are her to help" is a joke.
Feckless boobs
What do we gain by entering this fight? I say we gain absolutely nothing. We know that Gadaffi is an insane tin pot dictator. What do we know about the rebels? What are their intentions when Gadaffi is gone? Are they Islamic fundamentalists? Will they be a better alternative to what we have there now? No one has answered these questions with any certanty. Untill they do it’s not worth risking a single soldier, airman, sailor, or Marine. Let the Libyans sort it out on their own.
Your unanswered questions make your point effectively IMO.
You've been on FR long enough to know that numerous FReepers are in it for the posting and rarely respond themselves.
Moreover, it's a Washington Post column on a subject of current interest. Why isn't that a legitimate post?
Nice article for a weekend news dump.
Libya`s democratic opposition
And the assumption the opposition is “democratic” is based on.....?
The regime that would take power will have a high likelihood of being a hardline islamist one. If there`s one thing Gaddafi is NOT, it`s hardcore muslim.
I`m for letting them cull the herd naturally. Let them kill each other `til the cows come home.
It`s not our fight, and we have no political influence there anyway, so let this one go and grab the popcorn.
That`s the rub. As in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia, we seem to know nothing about who will take power, unless the recent public softening of the stance vs. the muslim brotherhood is a recognition of an undeniable future.
But then, the top intel schlub, James Clapper, doesn`t even recognize islam as a threat to national security. He wouldn`t know a jihad if it schwacked him upside his head.
You have a legitimate point. Unfortunately, for any wishful thinking that the Arab world might evolve into legitimate democracies, Arabs are stuck with Islam, which locks them into a ninth century mindset in which democracy doesn’t compute. Arab men are loathe to relinquish total power over women: stoning, beheading, honor killing, etc.. Islam is an evil cult, and they’re not likely to give it up. They’re crazy, Islam gives them permission to lie, cheat, steal, and kill infidels (us), and now they have nukes.
Have to break the news to ya Sean, Tailgunner Joe McCarthy is no longer amongst the living but is still living rent free in the lefty consciousness. More available w/in the book ‘Blacklisted by History’.
“Across the board, we are slowly tightening the noose on Gaddafi.” Barack Obama.
Oh, and the economy is vastly improving...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.