Posted on 05/04/2011 6:03:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Barack Obamas cluelessness in regards to Lybia became glaringly obvious when the U.S. military was put in the spot of providing air support for rebels that were, in fact, al Qaeda allies.
Many FReepers wondered how Obama could be that incompetent. Some FReepers thought that nobody could be that incompetent and wondered if Obama was helping al Qaeda on purpose. Some FReepers agreed.
Obama will be pleased. . FReeper comment Number 1.
Why do you think he acted so quickly . FReeper comment Number 2.
Here is what I posted in answer to that question:
******************
Because of stupidity. Because, in foreign affairs, Barack Obama is totally clueless. Because Barack Obama never bothered to do his homework and educate himself. Because Barack Obama was an Affirmative Action candidate that too many irrational people gushed over because of the way he looked and sounded instead of what he knew and you can't realistically expect anything but FUBAR's from such a President.
Barack Obama got into the "Let's overthrow Gadhafi" chess game without ever bothering to study what would happen beyond the first move of "Pawn to King 4".
Barack Obama had not thought out the chess game beyond the extremely naïve notion that you can:
1.) Topple Gadhafi so that
2.) America can then Cut & Run so that
3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after
The three major problems with that childishly naïve lunacy are that:
1.) There is no such thing as a Democarcy Fairy
2.) In all of military history, air power has never, ever, secured a single square mile of territory. To secure territorry, you need "boots on the ground". The 8th Air Force may have flattened East Berlin in World War II but East Berlin became Communist because, after the bombing, it was the Soviets with "boots on the ground" there.
3.) The one warring faction that is pouring fighters into Libya in order to have "boots on the ground" to secure the final Victory in Libya is al Qaeda. ("Thank you, U.S. air power, for giving us the future Billions of dollars of Libyan oil revenues that we will use to kill Americans!")
After his intial blunder, saner heads at the Pentagon pointed out to Obama:
"Mr. President, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."
Then, Obama realized what an idiot he has been.
"What should I do now? How can I fix this?"
"Stalemate, Mr. President. We will claim a stalemate. With Gadhafi still in power, we can use him as a proxy to keep the radical Islamists in check just like George H. W. Bush used Saddam to keep the Iranian-backed, radical Islamists in southern Iraq in check in 1991 after the Gulf War."
So, the Pentagon starts making statements about "Stalemate".
This is the Charlie Foxtrot that happens when voters support a ridiculously unprepared and unqualified Affirmative Action candidate just because they absolutely adore how that candidate looks and sounds without ever bothering to figure out if that candiate would lead America into FUBAR after FUBAR through sheer ignorance and incompetence.
You do not have to be a secret al Qaeda supporter to get America into such a FUBAR and hand Billions of dollars of future oil revenue over to al Qaeda.
You just have to be so utterly unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief that you actually have the extremely naïve notion that you can:
1.) Topple Gadhafi so that
2.) America can then Cut & Run so that
3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after
Case in point:
"So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion. I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government" .... Sarah Palin in interview with Greta van Sustern
"But, Governor Palin, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."
"Umm ... What do you mean by "boots on the ground"? What's an "Islamist"? What does al Qaeda have to do with any of this and the Democracy Fairy?"
Heck, she's already made significant inroads with India and Israel.
It’s sad that there is no mention that going to war must be a decision made by the representatives of the people, not by the president, as provided for in our Constitution.
I believe that one of our Founding Fathers summed it up best when he said “Avoid foreign entanglements”.
Unfortunately the 2nd Bush administration to this day believes that they followed all five points when they prosecuted 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.' Somehow they have convinced themselves that they went in with a well-defined plan, with overwhelming force, to fight a quick and efficient war.
That we are still there is proof positive that they were wrong. However, the essayist correctly states that even if we find out later that the war is tougher than we had imagined the conservative thing is to not just cut and run.
So basically every president from all time can claim that they followed the five points, was surprised that the war lasted longer than they had hoped, and because they couldn't just cut and run we ended up staying longer and spending more money and lives than we intended.
According to this politician "logic" even the Vietnam War followed Palin's five points.
Basically Palin's Five Points are not original to her. They have been stated, restated, and affirmed by many, if not all, administrations. In theory they are great. In practice they are turned on their head and we end up going to war far more often than we should, and get stuck in many more quagmires than is justified.
After the wall fell Bush the 1st launched the USA on a new path of foreign affairs which he termed the New world order. In that doctrine was the need for international support and the defacto veto of the UN over American actions. after that point it become a needed thing to get partners to engage in armed conflict. be it Somalia, the first gulf war, kosovo, Iraq Afghanistan, Libya etc....Palin called for a rejection of that policy and replacement with the Reagan doctrine.
a very good move by Gov Palin. The only reaganite on the field both in domestic policy and now in foreign policy.
To put some interesting spin on things, at some point, the Bush family developed and acquired the equivalent of diplomatic data mining software. Perhaps from the CIA, perhaps somewhere else.
As background, for some years, police agencies have had software that correlates vast amounts of data about criminals, their associations and families, their m.o.’s, their victims, etc. This creates a huge number of “linkages” that can be pursued when a crime is committed, far more than any human could figure out. The software is so successful that it was adapted for use by the US military in Iraq, to discover terrorist networks.
When H.W. Bush was president, he mentioned the thousands of interconnections, “linkages”, that exist between nations, and how if they could be figured out, US foreign policy could be a dimension greater than anything anyone else had. Acting invisibly, the US could almost always get what it wanted, even if it had no direct involvement.
Then, even before the campaign season had begun, W. Bush began building the soon to be presidential ranch in Crawford, TX; and had also cornered all the big money Republican contributors, so that the primary race was over before it had begun. This level of prior planning seems to jibe with some kind of advice oracle.
But the Bush family seems to be keeping this capability in the family, and a few, trusted allies. So it is not a “Republican” foreign policy.
Some of these principles may sound familiar. A few of them were first expressed back in 1984 in President Reagans cabinet. They were designed to help us sharply define when and how we should use force, and they served us well in the Reagan years. Times are much different now, but I believe that by updating these time-tested principles to address the unique and changing circumstances and threats that we face today, they will serve us well now and into the future. Remember, Reagan liked to keep it simple, yet profound. Remember what he would say to the enemy? Hed say, we win, you lose. Some may argue that today in a world where we are dealing with terrorist organizations rather than Cold War adversaries, these principals are outdated. On the contrary, these principles are timeless. They will allow us to effectively and forcefully defend our vital national interests and those of our key allies in the age of terrorism. We must vigorously defend ourselves, but at the same time we must not wear down our armed forces with never-ending and ever-increasing commitments. I believe that America must never retreat into isolation. The world would be less safe and less free without our leadership. And we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead. To whom much is given, much is expected. We cannot be the worlds policeman granted, or the worlds ATM. But we can lead by example. By our words and, when necessary, by our actions, we must and we will remain the worlds abiding beacon of freedom.
One of the key differences between Palin's doctrine and Powell's doctrine is the need for international support. the Bush/Powell's doctrine was basically Reagan's doctrine except Powell and bush added that need for international support and called it the New world Order. Palin is calling for rejection of that New world Order and a return of the Reagan Doctrine updated to handle the fact that we are not in the cold war but in a different type of fight.
As far as your point about all wars following the 5 points. that simply is not true. The gulf war's end was dictated not by a clearly defined plan but on how far the coalition of the willing allowed America to go. Iraq and Afghanistan were not in any way shape or form following these 5 points. nor is the present Libya operation, or Kosovo or the Haiti mission and on and on. the last military operation that followed the Reagan doctrine was Panama.
You're wrong.
You need both Congress AND the President to wage a successful war. The President commands the troops. Congress funds the effort. Can't have one without the other, though each may try.
The President can command the troops to wage war until the money runs out. Then he needs Congress to fund the effort. Congress can declare that they want to fund a war, but they will get nowhere with out a CIC to wage the war.
That is what a system of checks and balances is all about.
That's the simplicity of the Constitution.
That is what a system of checks and balances is all about.
That's the simplicity of the Constitution.
You could hardly be more wrong.
The United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in our country, delegates the power to declare war to the Congress and the power to wage war to the President. What that means is that only the Congress, as representatives of the People and of the States, can determine whether or not the nation goes to war. If the People, through Congress, decide that the nation shall go to war, the President then, and only then, has the authority to wage it.
Unless the country is being invaded, if the congress does not declare war against another country, the president is constitutionally barred from waging it, no matter how much he desires to do so.
I can hardly believe that someone who posts on FR could have such little regard for the clear words of the Constitution. Your view denigrates that great document no less than the "living document" view of the progressives. Our system of checks and balances is not predicated on one branch being able to disregard the Constitution until another branch does something about it. It is based on each branch abiding by the powers granted to it by the Constitution itself.
I find your heretical view of the Constitution frightening and suggest that you read up on the history of the writing of the Constitution, including when Pierce Butler brought up his view of the war-making powers of the presidency, that was quite similar to yours, and how he was renounced by all of the other members of the convention.
I find your heretical view of the Constitution frightening and suggest that you read up on the history of the writing of the Constitution, including when Pierce Butler brought up his view of the war-making powers of the presidency, that was quite similar to yours, and how he was renounced by all of the other members of the convention.
Bullsh*t.
Pierce Butler favored vesting the power in the President, and of course that's not what I described above.
To wage war, you need a concurrence of the President and both Houses of Congress.
Congress can declare and fund a war all it wants, but if a president doesn't comannd the troops, there is no war.
Our system of checks and balances is not predicated on one branch being able to disregard the Constitution until another branch does something about it. It is based on each branch abiding by the powers granted to it by the Constitution itself.
Your "it's unconstitutional because....it's unconstitutional" logic is circular.
A president can commit troops in the name of defending the country. It's insane to think that a president can't. In that case it's up to Congress to then declare war and fund the war if they concur. If Congress does not concur, then they have the power to defund the war.
I find your level of intelectual understanding to be frightning. Reminds me of mid-sixties to early seventies leftwing propaganda.
The president can be replaced by Congress whenever they want. Refusal to fight a declared war would be more than enough reason.
I find your level of intelectual understanding to be frightning. Reminds me of mid-sixties to early seventies leftwing propaganda.
Look, I don't know where you got your GED, but your view that the Constitution means what you want it to mean, not what it clearly states, is what being leftwing is all about.
The president can be replaced by Congress whenever they want. Refusal to fight a declared war would be more than enough reason.
So if a leftwing Democrat Congress declared war on free Poland and free Ukraine and if a Ronald Reagan type president refused to command the troops to invade Poland and Ukraine, do you actually think that Congress could justifiably impeach the President?
Look, I don't know where you got your GED, but your view that the Constitution means what you want it to mean, not what it clearly states, is what being leftwing is all about.
Cut the spam doofus, try thinking past your nose and answer the above question.
Let's take a real world hypothetical. If Roosevelt would have refused to wage war on Japan or Germany after the Declaration of War by the Congress, you bet he would have been impeached.
After all, the vast majority of Freepers bought into the Iraq War and the justifications put out by the Bush administration: we had a well-defined objective (get rid of Saddam which would automatically lead to the establishment of a democratic government), go in with sufficient force, and get out quick.
If you didn't believe all that horsepucky then Freepers would accuse you of being a commie pinko pacifist.
I've become really cynical with regard to America's foreign policy. I wish we would just change it to being truly and openly cynical: if a country kills an American, we bomb them. If they mess with one of our corporations then we bomb them. Otherwise keep the lines of trade and communication open in hopes that they will eventually come to their senses and institute democratic free market principles.
Let's take a real world hypothetical. If Roosevelt would have refused to wage war on Japan or Germany after the Declaration of War by the Congress, you bet he would have been impeached.
Of course, but that's not the question I asked you.
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.