War with Libya?

[avatar4321]

With the passage of the UN resolution calling for a no-fly zone in Libya, I am curious to see how the President and our fellow leaders in Congress are going to respond. I'm a little concerned about it:

1) Enforcement of a no-fly zone would be an act of war.
2) While I have no desire to see the rebels slaughtered, there is still way too much we don't know about them. Who are they? What will they do if they manage to overthrow Khadafi? Will they be friendly to the US and other free nations? Is the rebellion merely a ragtag group or is it an arm of religious groups in the region? We really don't know anything of the people we would be supporting.
3) What exactly is our interest in overthrowing Khadafi? Don't get me wrong, I know he is a bad man and I'd love to see him out of power and his people be free. But this isn't exactly a national security issue like Afghanistan and Iraq was.
4) This will be the third Muslim country we would be attacking. With our reputation the way it is, this may not translate to good feelings with Muslims worldwide.

Like I said, I feel for the rebels. But we have dangerously little information about what's going on and who the players are. We have little national interest in going in there. And this is happening extremely quickly.

Needless to say I'm alittle wary about what's going to happen here no matter what happens.

[fj1200]

But we have dangerously little information about what's going on and who the players are. We have little national interest in going in there. And this is happening extremely quickly.

I agree with most of that but I have a feeling that we have, or have access to, more information than us mere citizens think. But the essential question is what is our strategic national policy? I think with BO we have no idea or that it's so completely disjointed that it is totally unworkable and unreliable to the rest of the world. I think with GWB he had set out with a policy of supporting democracy and would work to that effect where he could. The wars probably held down his efforts to do more but it would certainly be interesting what he would have done with the unrest/uprisings that have occurred since he left.

[Gaffer]

We don't know who the players are. But, the un called for a no fly zone. The anti Israel pal supporting muslim loving un. The chinise and russians have abstained from voting on the no fly zone, there by giving there approval. The only country capable of enforcing the zone is the US. The ditherer in chief will now have to contemplate it while playing a few rounds of golf.

We are being pushed into an act of war that is not of our making or our concern. I think there are some Constitutional concerns here not to mention congressional ones.

[Thunderknuckles]

We are being pushed into an act of war that is not of our making or our concern.

I don't know about that. Since when does the U.S. bow to pressure from the U.N.?

I agree that we need to stay our of this one if we can. It's not in our best interests unless we need a few military installations in Libya
In any case, I think it will be interesting how the rest of the world responds to this. Will other countries commit assets to the UN sanctioned No-Fly effort? My cynical side says not a chance without the US leading the way.

[Kathianne]

I don't know about that. Since when does the U.S. bow to pressure from the U.N.?

I agree that we need to stay our of this one if we can. It's not in our best interests unless we need a few military installations in Libya
In any case, I think it will be interesting how the rest of the world responds to this. Will other countries commit assets to the UN sanctioned No-Fly effort? My cynical side says not a chance without the US leading the way.

Since Obama is president:

Since when does the U.S. bow to pressure from the U.N.?

All quotes except the one replied to are from Obama's text from WH: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1245...-full-text.htm

And that's why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.

Yesterday, in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens. It authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime.

Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.

In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone -- it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together.

Indeed, there's a new "Obama Doctrine":

Now, the United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi's refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians. It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it. We are coordinating closely with them. And this is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law.

Now, how he's going to collect on that 'cost of enforcing' should be interesting to watch. Maybe a new cigarette tax on the UN?

We have made clear our support for a set of universal values, and our support for the political and economic change that the people of the region deserve. But I want to be clear: the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab World. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.

From earlier in his speech:

The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately.

So the Arabs will decide, except for US, UK, France and the UN. Okay...

[avatar4321]

Oddly enough, it's France who is leading the way in the no fly zone. Which probably isn't as odd when you realize how much oil Europe recieves from Libya.

Perhaps we shouldn't get involved at all, but allow them to do it.

[revelarts]

I Sympathize with the Libyans but it's not our fight.
Military gear and logistical assistant via communications and info to the rebels if they seem responsible, but that's about as far as we should go on these issues IMO.
Prays go to any decent folks trying to create better gov't for their own countries.

the U.N.'s voting is Approved by their respective gov'ts including our. At least the our to highly esteemed executive branch. The U.N. has vaporous authority except when congress votes to agree with thier foolishness.

[logroller]

nice post rev.

Found this quote in an article from a senior political analyst at aljazeera.

They [western powers] need to demonstrate how their 'change of heart' from supporting the Gaddafi dictatorship over several years to condemning him as a war criminal and acting to topple him, is not motivated by more of the same narrow national and Western strategic interest.
Unfortunately, the Libyan dictator's statements and actions (and his recent cynical and contradictory threats and appeals) have played into Western hands, making it impossible for Libyans, like Tunisians and Egyptians before them, to take matters into their own hands.
...
Now that the international community has given the Libyan revolutionaries a protective umbrella that includes a full range of military and humanitarian actions, it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action in every city and town both in the east and west and challenge the regime's militias.


The most effective and constructive way to use the newly mandated use of force by the UN Security Council is to use as little of it, as accurately, as selectively as possible, and ideally not use it at all. It is still possible for the threat of the use of international force, coupled with domestic popular pressure, to bring down the weakened regime.

An escalation to an all out war is in no one's interest, especially Libya's.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...217965513.html

[fj1200]

Found this quote in an article from a senior political analyst at aljazeera.

it is incumbent upon the Libyan opposition to mobilise for mass action

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...217965513.html

Do you agree with it?

Because they can't do it alone.

[logroller]

another good opinion piece titled "Where are the Arabs?: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...925476865.html

[avatar4321]

I've been much less inclined to support this since learning that Al Qaeda is involved with the rebels. we should be letting them fight each other.