Obama's Libya debacle - How a Well-Meaning Intervention Ended in Failure

[laughing dog]

Good for you.

Was there something specific you disagreed with? Under those "Libyans who vehemently disagree", are you including all the dead ones and all the ones whose rights are being abused? Are you including the ones who are increasingly coming under ISIS control?

You seem to be willing to ignore all the Iraqis would be discriminated against, imprisoned, tortured or dead if Saddam were in power, and the Libyans who would be discriminated against, imprisoned, tortured or dead if Qaddafi was still in power. I think our invasion of Iraq was wrong for a number of reasons, but I find it the argument against our involvement in Libya to be naive.

I didn't ignore them., and you obviously haven't read the article which made a strong case for those numbers being several-fold higher as a result of the NATO led overthrow.

You ignored them as much as I ignored those who are dead etc... You think it made a good case, I think it is naive.

Not to mention the other problems it caused (plausibility contributing to the amount of violence in Syria, diminishment of non-proliferation goals, diminisment of other middle eastern governments' willingness to cooperate with the west, among other things).

Those problems are conjectures, not facts. In fact, it appears ME gov'ts are willing to co-operate more with the West, not less (the coalition against IS is a glaring example).

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Lest we forget there was a time where people were worried Obama was not getting enough credit for his success in Libya

And I'm sure that if we went through the archive we'd find people on this board who were crowing about how wonderful Obama's actions in Libya were.

One can try to pin all the blame for Iraq on Bush, but not Libya. That was Obama, and the current chaos there is surely how he won his Peace Prize.

 

[laughing dog]

Lest we forget there was a time where people were worried Obama was not getting enough credit for his success in Libya

And I'm sure that if we went through the archive we'd find people on this board who were crowing about how wonderful Obama's actions in Libya were.

It wasn't that long ago to find. Go ahead, substantiate your claim.

One can try to pin all the blame for Iraq on Bush, but not Libya. That was Obama, and the current chaos there is surely how he won his Peace Prize.

Because without the US standing behind the French and other countries, the overthrow of Qaddafi would not have happened?

 

[Axulus]

You ignored them as much as I ignored those who are dead etc... You think it made a good case, I think it is naive.

Can you be more specific? Which part of the analysis do you think is wrong or poorly thought out?

Those problems are conjectures, not facts. In fact, it appears ME gov'ts are willing to co-operate more with the West, not less (the coalition against IS is a glaring example).

Libya was willing to shut down is nuclear program and hand everything over to the West. No middle eastern government will be making that same mistake again.

Yes, they will cooperate only when their own strategic interests align strongly with the west. They will be far less likely to cooperate, however, when it diminishes their own security interests. Why would they? They would be sowing the seeds for their own overthrow by NATO.

 

[laughing dog]

Can you be more specific? Which part of the analysis do you think is wrong or poorly thought out?

The analysis of the effects of the overthrow compare the effects of the overthrow and ignore the history of abuse, etc.... under Qaddafi - it is a comparison of apples to nothingness. The broader backlash section is unadulterated silliness. Believing there is an iota of a chance that North Korea is going to give up its nuclear weaponry because of anything the US says or does (or does not do) is ridiculous. Using Iranian public rhetoric as evidence is silliness.

Libya was willing to shut down is nuclear program and hand everything over to the West. No middle eastern government will be making that same mistake again.

Really, you know that because...?

Yes, they will cooperate only when their own strategic interests align strongly with the west.

That is true whether we helped the Libyan rebels or not.

They will be far less likely to cooperate, however, when it diminishes their own security interests. Why would they? They would be sowing the seeds for their own overthrow by NATO.

That is true whether we helped the Libyan rebels or not.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And I'm sure that if we went through the archive we'd find people on this board who were crowing about how wonderful Obama's actions in Libya were.

It wasn't that long ago to find. Go ahead, substantiate your claim.

Very well.

Ding Dong, the Dictator's Dead

One can try to pin all the blame for Iraq on Bush, but not Libya. That was Obama, and the current chaos there is surely how he won his Peace Prize.

Because without the US standing behind the French and other countries, the overthrow of Qaddafi would not have happened?

There is a distinct possibility that your statement is true. If not for US endorsement of this activity, the French might not have had the will to go through with it.

 

[Axulus]

It wasn't that long ago to find. Go ahead, substantiate your claim.

Very well.

Ding Dong, the Dictator's Dead

One can try to pin all the blame for Iraq on Bush, but not Libya. That was Obama, and the current chaos there is surely how he won his Peace Prize.

Because without the US standing behind the French and other countries, the overthrow of Qaddafi would not have happened?

There is a distinct possibility that your statement is true. If not for US endorsement of this activity, the French might not have had the will to go through with it.

Looks like Higgins called it!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'd say it is rather two faced to say "It is Obama" when the news is good but "It was NATO" when the news is bad. It makes a person little more than an inverse Republican.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn it, the link worked before!

Let's see if this works better.

Linky

 

[untermensche]

Lest we forget there was a time where people were worried Obama was not getting enough credit for his success in Libya

And I'm sure that if we went through the archive we'd find people on this board who were crowing about how wonderful Obama's actions in Libya were.

One can try to pin all the blame for Iraq on Bush, but not Libya. That was Obama, and the current chaos there is surely how he won his Peace Prize.

You live under some delusion that US presidents are omnipotent and can see the future.

Obama reacted to events in Libya.

Bush initiated events in Iraq.

 

[Axulus]

And I'm sure that if we went through the archive we'd find people on this board who were crowing about how wonderful Obama's actions in Libya were.

One can try to pin all the blame for Iraq on Bush, but not Libya. That was Obama, and the current chaos there is surely how he won his Peace Prize.

You live under some delusion that US presidents are omnipotent and can see the future.

Obama reacted to events in Libya.

Bush initiated events in Iraq.

Obama played a leadership role in advocating the UN resolution authorizing intervention in Libya and contributed US military arms. Why this nitpick on the specific level of responsibility of Obama vs. Bush? It's clear that this intervention was NATO led while Iraq intervention was US led. Nitpicking about this doesn't relate to the failure and utter mess that is Libya today and the role that the Obama administration played in contributing to this scenario.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also the title of the OP. Don't try and defend a poor title for your OP on the editor of the article you are citing.

it is NATOs Libya debacle, with Obama and Clinton playing a leadership role in the ordeal.

Well, you seem to be implying the "a leadership role" as "the leadership role".

Why not focus on the contents rather than nitpick the title? I already conceded it was NATO's debacle, so I don't get your angle.

I don't think it is a nitpick at all. Another attempt to try to blame Obama for whatever. If he has any adjacent involvement in something that goes badly, blame Obama. If something works were, then Obama is lying. Gets very tiring.

Regime change doesn't have a good track record. That it was an ultimately bad idea isn't surprising. France was the big dog in the Libyan regime change, the US supported it. You can put it in the pile of "What the fuck were they thinking... again?!" But to label it Obama's debacle is inaccurate. It was a Western debacle.

Why this nitpick on the specific level of responsibility of Obama vs. Bush? That is subjective and doesn't relate to the failure and utter mess that is Libya today.

Because over 100,000 Iraqis died in Iraq because of policy choices by W. Libya isn't a fine tuned machine, but over 100,000 dead? Moore-Coutler?

 

[Axulus]

Also the title of the OP. Don't try and defend a poor title for your OP on the editor of the article you are citing.

it is NATOs Libya debacle, with Obama and Clinton playing a leadership role in the ordeal.

Well, you seem to be implying the "a leadership role" as "the leadership role".

Why not focus on the contents rather than nitpick the title? I already conceded it was NATO's debacle, so I don't get your angle.

I don't think it is a nitpick at all. Another attempt to try to blame Obama for whatever. If he has any adjacent involvement in something that goes badly, blame Obama. If something works were, then Obama is lying. Gets very tiring.

Regime change doesn't have a good track record. That it was an ultimately bad idea isn't surprising. France was the big dog in the Libyan regime change, the US supported it. You can put it in the pile of "What the fuck were they thinking... again?!" But to label it Obama's debacle is inaccurate. It was a Western debacle.

And I already conceded this point. I wasn't aware that the UK and France were the primary force behind getting this intervention implemented until you mentioned it and I researched it. Nor should you so easily absolve Obama and Clinton for their leadership role along with UK and France in getting the UN resolution passed.

Because over 100,000 Iraqis died in Iraq because of policy choices by W. Libya isn't a fine tuned machine, but over 100,000 dead? Moore-Coutler?

Reading comprehension fail. Where in the hell did I even mention Bush anywhere? You clearly have some sort of hobby horse you like to ride. It's more like Derec-Higgins.

 

[ksen]

Derec-Higgins.

ouch

 

[Ford]

Regime change doesn't have a good track record. That it was an ultimately bad idea isn't surprising. France was the big dog in the Libyan regime change, the US supported it. You can put it in the pile of "What the fuck were they thinking... again?!" But to label it Obama's debacle is inaccurate. It was a Western debacle.

Again, it is mostly a Libyan debacle. Yes, France, the UK and US supported the rebels to the point where they were able to overthrow the regime, but pretending the regime would have stood just fine and chaos would have been averted without that support is absurd. It might well have turned out like Syria - an ongoing civil war with a splash of ISIS - but Qaddaffi's time was running out.

Why is Libya a mess now? I'd blame it less on Obama and France and more on the fact that - like Iraq - Libya simply didn't have a "we've overthrown our tyrant, now what?" plan. The country is fractured with a number of different factions vying for power and no amount of intervention will impart upon them an ability to self-govern.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Regime change doesn't have a good track record. That it was an ultimately bad idea isn't surprising. France was the big dog in the Libyan regime change, the US supported it. You can put it in the pile of "What the fuck were they thinking... again?!" But to label it Obama's debacle is inaccurate. It was a Western debacle.

Again, it is mostly a Libyan debacle. Yes, France, the UK and US supported the rebels to the point where they were able to overthrow the regime, but pretending the regime would have stood just fine and chaos would have been averted without that support is absurd. It might well have turned out like Syria - an ongoing civil war with a splash of ISIS - but Qaddaffi's time was running out.

Why is Libya a mess now? I'd blame it less on Obama and France and more on the fact that - like Iraq - Libya simply didn't have a "we've overthrown our tyrant, now what?" plan. The country is fractured with a number of different factions vying for power and no amount of intervention will impart upon them an ability to self-govern.

True, but supporting the overthrow when there is no model for a replacement government is uber-dumb. You can't help overthrow a government and then point fingers at the Libyans for not having a plan.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Obama reacted to events in Libya.

Bush initiated events in Iraq.

Nice spinning.

 

[Ford]

Obama reacted to events in Libya.

Bush initiated events in Iraq.

Nice spinning.

So Bush was just supporting the Iraqis rebellion against Saddam?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nice spinning.

So Bush was just supporting the Iraqis rebellion against Saddam?

So Obama was JUST supporting the Libyan rebels?

 

[Axulus]

So Bush was just supporting the Iraqis rebellion against Saddam?

So Obama was JUST supporting the Libyan rebels?

The point is that there was no rebellion in place against Saddam. A rebellion in place doesn't necessarily make the case for intervention stronger, but it does make the overthrow a bit more grassroots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Obama was JUST supporting the Libyan rebels?

The point is that there was no rebellion in place against Saddam. A rebellion in place doesn't necessarily make the case for intervention stronger, but it does make the overthrow a bit more grassroots.

In fact, there was nothing. The US talked with Hussein's military and pretty much had them drop their arms and walk away. We shocked, we awe'd. We put a bunch of recent college grad yes-men in charge. Looting mobs will be looting mobs according to Rumsfeld.

In Libya there was support given to people fighting against the leader. Though the fighting may have been instigated by Western "Intelligence" assets. When all was done, we smiled, said this is progress and kind of hoped it'd end well. I wasn't impressed when it went down, I'm still not impressed. And of course, BENGHAZI!!!! where 14 million Americans died or something.