Ripples from the Libyan Adventure

[dogtowner]

hmmm... food for thought

In case you wish to consider something other than feel good ball spiking.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asserted recently that critics of the Libyan mission “have been proven wrong.” Now, with the death of dictator Muammar Qadhafi, the secretary’s view is supported by the overwhelming majority of Washington’s foreign policy establishment.


But this won’t be the first time that Washington may be proven wrong. Even conceding the unlikely outcome that the Libyans overcome their tribal, regional, and political differences to establish a democratic state, the long-term costs of U.S. involvement are likely to far outweigh the benefits.


The first negative fallout was seen in the Russian and Chinese veto of the U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria. The Russians and Chinese made it clear that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s abuse of the U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya to ”protect civilians” to justify a policy of regime change will make them reluctant to support future Security Council resolutions — which the United States and NATO could exploit to pursue an expanded agenda.


The Libyan adventure appears to have transformed the Security Council from a potential instrument of U.S. foreign policy to an impediment.
Equally important are those who abstained on the Syrian resolution—India, Brazil, South Africa and Lebanon, as the representative of the Arab League. They also share the concerns about the overreach of U.S. policy. The BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China — lining up against the United States is worrisome. Considering these nations’ economic clout and the need for their support in the important challenges facing the United States, creating unnecessary rifts seems imprudent.


The Arab League resolution expressing concern about Libya and calling for a “no-fly” zone to protect civilians was essential to win international approval for NATO’s intervention. But within days after NATO starting its bombing of Qadhafi forces, the Arab League Secretary General complained that they did not call for bombing, only the establishment of a “no-fly” zone.


Securing Arab League support for action against a member state was unprecedented — and is now unlikely to happen again. Most Arab governments will likely be highly resistant to giving even a hint of approval to foreign intervention in the internal affairs of one of their members.
Trust in the word of the United States has been significantly harmed. The international distrust is likely to far outlast the joys of military victory and Qadhafi’s demise.


Non-proliferation policy has also been made more difficult. Many are suggesting that NATO would not have attacked Libya if Qadhafi had not negotiated away his weapons of mass destruction. Obtaining weapons of mass destruction appears to many as the only way to protect against Western intimidation. So getting people to abandon attempts to obtain WMD has become more difficult.


Even more important is the damage done to American democracy.
The administration’s failure to obtain congressional approval for the military operation sets an unfortunate precedent. Making matters worse, the White House asserted that it was authorized to take military action by the U.N. Security Council. The idea that the administration has time to get Security Council approval for sending U.S. citizens to war, but does not have time or need to get congressional approval is a serious setback for U.S. democracy.


Congress, with all of its faults, remains the people’s elected representative and it must not be excluded from the decision of going to war. The idea that the president believes that some unelected international institution gives him, as the elected leader of the American people, the authority to go to war is a significant diminution of U.S. democracy.


The entire operation was funded by executive branch fiat. No request for congressional funding was made. Such a request would have required Congress to debate the policy.


According to the administration, $1.1 billion of Defense Department funds were spent in Libya. No one has stated the cost in intelligence and clandestine funds. If the executive branch of government can expend such sums outside the constitutional process, where approval of all expenditures must begin in the House, what chance do the American people have to establish control over government spending?


President Barack Obama asserted that we were going to war because American values were being threatened. The United States had an obligation to prevent a massacre of Libyan citizens.


Historically, the United States went to war when American lives were in danger or our national interest was threatened. In this case, the president alone decided what American values were and when they were being threatened. In democracies, the people determine national values.
One cannot promote democratic values abroad while weakening those same values at home.


Graeme Bannerman, a scholar at the Middle East Institute, is a former staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

​

 

[Openmind]

hmmm... food for thought

In case you wish to consider something other than feel good ball spiking.

​

Thank you for sharing that ONE point of view!

Now. . .Can we move on and congratulate our President and the French and NATO troops for a job well done?

 

[dogtowner]

Thank you for sharing that ONE point of view!

Now. . .Can we move on and congratulate our President and the French and NATO troops for a job well done?

more than ONE opinion

Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia

As politicians in Western capitals were taking quiet pleasure in the capture and killing of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi yesterday, opinions elsewhere were divided.



In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the Geneva Conventions had been breached with the killing of Colonel Gaddafi.



"We have to lean on facts and international laws," Mr Lavrov said. "They say that a captured participant of an armed conflict should be treated in a certain way. And in any case, a prisoner of war should not be killed."
Russia has been critical of Nato military action in Libya, saying that it has gone well beyond the stated mission of saving civilian life. The main concern for Moscow now is whether the new Libyan authorities will honour contracts signed by the Gaddafi regime. As well as the oil and arms trade, Russian Railways had secured a £2bn contract to construct a railway line between Sirte and Benghazi. Moscow recognised the National Transitional Council as the official government of Libya last month and said it expected all existing contracts to be honoured.

 

[Openmind]

more than ONE opinion

Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia

You had to go ALL THE WAY to Russia to find support for your anti-Obama rants?

You mean. . .all the way to the "Communists?"

Talk about "stretching!"

 

[dogtowner]

You had to go ALL THE WAY to Russia to find support for your anti-Obama rants?

You mean. . .all the way to the "Communists?"

Talk about "stretching!"

well predictably you chose not to read the posted article and cant be open to other views. your prerogative of course.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

more than ONE opinion

Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia

because Russia is so good at the law...ever checked into how many of its own people Putin has killed in his time as leader ( and lets not pretend he is not in charge now)

 

[Gipper]

You had to go ALL THE WAY to Russia to find support for your anti-Obama rants?

You mean. . .all the way to the "Communists?"

Talk about "stretching!"

Haven't you heard? They aren't commies any more. The Great One put an end to that a while back. You might want to get a history book. If you need my recommend one, just let me know.

 

[Openmind]

Haven't you heard? They aren't commies any more. The Great One put an end to that a while back. You might want to get a history book. If you need my recommend one, just let me know.

Your posts are always so informative and interesting!

You certainly add a lot to this forum by your informed and sensitive input.

 

[BigRob]

because Russia is so good at the law...ever checked into how many of its own people Putin has killed in his time as leader ( and lets not pretend he is not in charge now)

Neither you or Openmind addressed the issue of the article Dogtowner posted. If the argument is that we lose ability to act within the boundaries of the UNSC because we acted outside the parameters (possibly) through NATO, it could have an impact given the Chinese and Russian veto capability.

Let's not pretend politics doesn't play a major role at the United Nations.

Time will tell if such arguments prove valid, but neither of you have offered any semblance of a response to his original point.

 

[dogtowner]

because Russia is so good at the law...ever checked into how many of its own people Putin has killed in his time as leader ( and lets not pretend he is not in charge now)

A fraction of what Stalin did but lefties are the ones so concerned with how the rest of the world views us.

 

[dogtowner]

Neither you or Openmind addressed the issue of the article Dogtowner posted.

act surprised...

all goes to demonstrate closemindedness and uber-partisan hypocritical world view

 

[Openmind]

Neither you or Openmind addressed the issue of the article Dogtowner posted. If the argument is that we lose ability to act within the boundaries of the UNSC because we acted outside the parameters (possibly) through NATO, it could have an impact given the Chinese and Russian veto capability.

Let's not pretend politics doesn't play a major role at the United Nations.

Time will tell if such arguments prove valid, but neither of you have offered any semblance of a response to his original point.

Because that article was obviously just a biased expose, trying to find reason to bash Obama again.

How do I know. . .I read the first and the last part. The last part in particular is so much of an "illusion," or could probably qualify more as a direct "LIE" that the rest of the article doesn't deserve an answer:

Historically, the United States went to war when American lives were in danger or our national interest was threatened. In this case, the president alone decided what American values were and when they were being threatened. In democracies, the people determine national values.
One cannot promote democratic values abroad while weakening those same values at home.

Analysis of that ridiculous statement:
1. Are you trying to tell me that the 9 year Iraq war was "to save American lives or protect OUR national interest because it was "threatened?"
EVEN IF you can force yourself to believe that. . .we then would have failed MISERABLY!

2. If the second highlighted phrase is correct. . .why is it that a minority of tea party and GOP people can hold a country hostage by refusing to listen to the voice of the people (i.e., just as a last exemple. . .a great majority of the people want to raise taxes on the very wealthy to help create jobs. . . but it's not happening!)

3. Although I agree with the "promote democracy abroad," I totally disagree with the "meaning" that has for so many people. . . that is, "promote OUR KIND of democracy abroad," NOT "what people abroad want as a democracy!"
And, wouldn't you say that trying to silence the Occupy Wall Street PEACEFUL protesters through police crack down AND through continual bashing of their protests by the GOP is a form of "weakening" our democracy in the US? Wouldn't you say that, SCOTUS allowing ANY LARGE, global corporation to give any amount of money to the candidates THEY want to see elected (i.e., the Koch brothers) WEAKENS the voice of the people and thus democracy?

 

[BigRob]

Because that article was obviously just a biased expose, trying to find reason to bash Obama again.

How do I know. . .I read the first and the last part. The last part in particular is so much of an "illusion," or could probably qualify more as a direct "LIE" that the rest of the article doesn't deserve an answer:



Analysis of that ridiculous statement:
1. Are you trying to tell me that the 9 year Iraq war was "to save American lives or protect OUR national interest because it was "threatened?"
EVEN IF you can force yourself to believe that. . .we then would have failed MISERABLY!

The statement was: "Historically, the United States went to war when American lives were in danger or our national interest was threatened."

Iraq being a failure in this regard does not negate the statement.

2. If the second highlighted phrase is correct. . .why is it that a minority of tea party and GOP people can hold a country hostage by refusing to listen to the voice of the people (i.e., just as a last exemple. . .a great majority of the people want to raise taxes on the very wealthy to help create jobs. . . but it's not happening!)

Because elections have consequences, and at the end of the day I (they) won - Barack Obama

3. Although I agree with the "promote democracy abroad," I totally disagree with the "meaning" that has for so many people. . . that is, "promote OUR KIND of democracy abroad," NOT "what people abroad want as a democracy!"

So if we invaded Iraq with the goal of "promoting democracy" you would be on board?

And, wouldn't you say that trying to silence the Occupy Wall Street PEACEFUL protesters through police crack down AND through continual bashing of their protests by the GOP is a form of "weakening" our democracy in the US?

By this token, you have to assert that the continual bashing of the Tea Party weakened our democracy.

As for the protestors, if they would simply get a permit, they wouldn't all get arrested.

Wouldn't you say that, SCOTUS allowing ANY LARGE, global corporation to give any amount of money to the candidates THEY want to see elected (i.e., the Koch brothers) WEAKENS the voice of the people and thus democracy?

No. Free speech does not weaken democracy in my opinion.

 

[dogtowner]

The statement was: "Historically, the United States went to war when American lives were in danger or our national interest was threatened."

Iraq being a failure in this regard does not negate the statement.

We were responding to the threat of NATO partner Turkey as well as liberating Kuwait. and we had to go back as Hussein refused to honor the terms of surrender.

 

[BigRob]

We were responding to the threat of NATO partner Turkey as well as liberating Kuwait. and we had to go back as Hussein refused to honor the terms of surrender.

There are many reasons for why we ended up there...my point was simply that the outcome of the operation doesn't negate the purpose for being there originally.