Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/03/21/intervention-in-libya-neo-cons-1-civilized-world-0-39224/

^^^ i think i'm starting to work out a position on this whole thing because this really pissed me off

like the defense budget was ever going to be cut

At least this particular argument pissed me off--elsewhere I've been reminded this was not done as candidate Obama promised something like it would be done, that no compelling case has been made for it to occur, that no endgame has been elucidated...so max otm is what i'm saying

i'm basically holding out for the fantasy scenario of the_west's material self-interest coinciding with a humanitarian success :D

plus a pony

so no one cares that this is unconstitutional, i guess

lol are you serious

Given the visceral hatred of the CinC by some on the other side of the aisle, I await their challenge to the Court. Precedent suggests the Consitution is just another political tool, and the Right knows they will have to abide by a strict interpretation, too.

I heard on NPR an hour ago that Obama had "informed" Congressional leaders, which I suppose meets the requirements of the War Powers Act (which probably needs a constitutional challenge or two). I'm not crazy about what's going on constitutionally either.

i'm sure this is covered somewhere else itt but how did enforcement of a no fly zone become the degrading of Gadaffi's military capability?

um that's kind of what a no-fly zone is?

I marvel at some of the objections raised against the UN actions here, alternately sad and laughable

Think of planes and tanks as the terminal twigs of a command and control branching tree. Prune severely.

i'm sure this is covered somewhere else itt but how did enforcement of a no fly zone become the degrading of Gadaffi's military capability?

― utterfilth (whatever), Monday, March 21, 2011 6:12 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

he can't use planes to bomb the shit out of his own people--any other questions?

enforcing a no fly zone

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/21/congress_war_powers_the_president/index.html

shoulda said shoot the shit out of his planes, sorry

lol'ing at the insinuation that congress would somehow do the right thing here (and in a timely fashion too)

Nah, I'm pretty sure Congress would have given him the authority, even if it is Barack Hussein Obama -- they're chickenshits when it comes to this.

The real question: would Obama have defined "this" as a war?

eh, semantics. more useful to think about what the goals are and how best to achieve them.

uh waht

presidents haven't asked Congress for shit regarding the military since Vietnam, a little lat to go putting the rabbit back in the hat, it just isn't going to happen. whether or Obama would define this as a "war" or not is mostly irrelevant. the real question at hand is how far does our moral responsibility to the Libyan opposition extend, and what does meeting that obligation entail.

I'm sure glad we got all this sorted out during the last administration.

Sorry, but that question also requires us to ask whether we have any obligation at all to the Libyan opposition, whatever it is. I'm pretty sure you'd be more uncomfortable if it was Dubya as president.

I'm pretty sure you'd be more uncomfortable if it was Dubya as president.

ugh

think you have an obligation to the UN. or not! idk. odd debate not happening here between antis who say it's all in america's self-interest and antis who say it's not in the national interest at all.

i would be more uncomfortable if george w. bush was president, yes

because george w. bush was a shitty, incompetent president

Had to say it! I'm receptive to the administration's argument that abandoning a "pro-reform" movement would send crippling shockwaves across the region; but that's where my certainty ends. I'm just shocked that some of ILX's leading liberals are suddenly indifferent to the reach of a president's war powers.

also Gates > Rumsfeld

because george w. bush was a shitty, incompetent president

What a comfort!

my feeling is that a u.s. president has zero 'responsibility' or 'obligation' to intervene in a civil war on the other side of the world, as opposed to, say, swearing an oath to adhere to the constitution.

radical, i know

seems like ppl may think it's all cool until there are troops on the ground

It's also possible that the tension between HRC's hawkishness here and Gates' natural caution eventually produces a mission with real outlines.

Sorry, but that question also requires us to ask whether we have any obligation at all to the Libyan opposition, whatever it is.

This is a perfectly legitimate question, and one I'm largely ambivalent about. On the one hand Kaddawfy seems pretty bad, and I don't like the prospect of him massacring his own people from a humanitarian perspective. And unlike other, much messier ethnic conflicts and civil wars, it seems pretty clear-cut from the recent sequence of events who the agressor is. On the other hand, should we be the world's cops? well we are in many ways, whether I like it or not. But the options here either seemed to be 1) the US acts unilaterally to intervene, possibly with disastrous consequences. I was against this. 2) We intervene in collaboration with other allies and regional powers to present as much of a unified front as possible and share the burden/responsibility of either significantly shortening or resolving this conflict. This is what happened, and while I'm very apprehensive about the outcome, this seems like the best option to me. 3) We do nothing, Kaddafeee butchers the opposition, continues to rule with an iron fist, now even more angry and paranoid than before. This is not really acceptable to me on a moral level.

I'm pretty sure you'd be more uncomfortable if it was Dubya as president.

you insult me.

i mean i dont know what to say, alfred! i am more uncomfortable with a terrible president and his incompetent DoD running a military intervention

I'm glad you're that convinced of Obama's superiority to Bush.

I sure as hell am

(but, yeah, Obama's appropriation of much of Bush's foreign policy guidelines are for now irrelevant -- don't wanna derail thread)

btw, Shakes, I vastly prefer your spelling of Q's name.

Also: your framing of the argument is the most concise I've seen to date. Dubya line officially retracted.

The Corner breaks it down for us: "Obama’s pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262607/they-know-who-wears-pants-country-mark-krikorian

lol these guys

my feeling is that a u.s. president has zero 'responsibility' or 'obligation' to intervene in a civil war on the other side of the world, as opposed to, say, swearing an oath to adhere to the constitution.

I'm as wary of the US flexing its muscles overseas as anyone, but hardline isolationism is difficult for me to swallow.

"Zero responsibility" is basically Ron Paul's argument, isn't it?

x-post: it is for me too, but i'm in favor of overseas interventions being carried out legally with congressional authorization, not whenever a president decides it's a good idea.

I'm on board with the War Powers Resolution being unconstitutional and all, but it's still on the books so...

The Corner has been schizophrenic the last few days; these events have really confused them. Andy "Let's rape Moslems with a rolled-up copy of the U.S. Constitution" McCarthy opposes this while a couple of others wonder why Obama's been such a pussy.