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

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So if Bush had found some local Iraqi group, no matter how insignificant that group would have been without US help, and helped that group to rebel and overthrow Saddam, he'd be receiving the praises that Obama received?

 

[Ford]

So if Bush had found some local Iraqi group, no matter how insignificant that group would have been without US help, and helped that group to rebel and overthrow Saddam, he'd be receiving the praises that Obama received?

So it was Obama that was behind the anti-government protests that led to the rebellion in Libya? Before he got involved everyone from Benghazi to Tripoli was happy and peaceful and decided to get behind an insignificant group that Obama supported.

That's quite a feat.

 

[dismal]

And of course, BENGHAZI!!!! where 14 million Americans died or something.

Ach, it's more Derec-Higgins.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Of course you can.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Very well.

Ding Dong, the Dictator's Dead

I suppose we will have to take your word for it, because it says that area is closed.

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.

And they might have had the will go to through with it. So, your claim remains unconvincing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Very well.

Ding Dong, the Dictator's Dead

I suppose we will have to take your word for it, because it says that area is closed.

Yeah, true, that link's not very good. If you had looked a few posts down, you'll have found I posted a better link. But that's too much work.

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.

And they might have had the will go to through with it. So, your claim remains unconvincing.

Especially if you don't want to be convinced. Name a single NATO offensive that happened against the wishes of the US. Just one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The basic problem is Obama doesn't want to admit there are Islamists trying to mess the world up.

Our intervention (both Iraq and Libya) made sense when you're just looking at the local situation. Unfortunately, in both cases it provided an opening for the Islamists to seize control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The basic problem is Obama doesn't want to admit there are Islamists trying to mess the world up.

Is that actually true or are you putting words in his mouth? There are radicals out there that want to create all sorts of crap. People like you seem to think giving it a label makes it easier to defeat.

Our intervention (both Iraq and Libya) made sense when you're just looking at the local situation.

In what world did Iraq make sense? The sectarian violence was well predicted by many analysts. Libya was even worse as it lacked any sort of foundation to build a democracy upon.

 

[untermensche]

Obama reacted to events in Libya.

Bush initiated events in Iraq.

Nice spinning.

Is stating facts spinning?

Bush ordered a massive invasion. A massive war materialized where there was no war before.

Obama tried to steer ongoing events.

 

[laughing dog]

I suppose we will have to take your word for it, because it says that area is closed.

Yeah, true, that link's not very good. If you had looked a few posts down, you'll have found I posted a better link. But that's too much work.

That link didn't work either. I guess it is too much work to substantiate your claim.

Especially if you don't want to be convinced. Name a single NATO offensive that happened against the wishes of the US. Just one.

Since I don't believe anyone here is claiming the US was not involved with helping the Libyan rebels, I fail to understand why you feel that is evidence that US was in charge or in the lead.

 

[laughing dog]

The basic problem is Obama doesn't want to admit there are Islamists trying to mess the world up.

No, the basic problem is that there radical terrorists who are trying to mess up the world and no one knows how to deal with it.

Our intervention (both Iraq and Libya) made sense when you're just looking at the local situation. Unfortunately, in both cases it provided an opening for the Islamists to seize control.

Even Bush's father knew that invading Iraq was a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Axulus]

Yeah, true, that link's not very good. If you had looked a few posts down, you'll have found I posted a better link. But that's too much work.

That link didn't work either. I guess it is too much work to substantiate your claim.

Especially if you don't want to be convinced. Name a single NATO offensive that happened against the wishes of the US. Just one.

Since I don't believe anyone here is claiming the US was not involved with helping the Libyan rebels, I fail to understand why you feel that is evidence that US was in charge or in the lead.

You have to hit "back" on your browser after logging in and click on it again.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the basic problem is that there radical terrorists who are trying to mess up the world and no one knows how to deal with it.

Which is why a "first, do no harm" approach is the more prudent method. Going in with guns blazing and hope the resulting mess works itself out is a poor strategy.

 

[laughing dog]

You have to hit "back" on your browser after logging in and click on it again.

Still didn't work for me.

Which is why a "first, do no harm" approach is the more prudent method. Going in with guns blazing and hope the resulting mess works itself out is a poor strategy.

And how does one know what "doing no harm" means in those situations?

 

[Ford]

No, the basic problem is that there radical terrorists who are trying to mess up the world and no one knows how to deal with it.

Which is why a "first, do no harm" approach is the more prudent method. Going in with guns blazing and hope the resulting mess works itself out is a poor strategy.

Perhaps you'd care to outline which policy would do no harm in Libya?

Staying out of the conflict altogether wouldn't lead to "no harm." After we bloodied Saddam's nose in Gulf War 1.0, we stepped back and didn't get involved when there was an uprising that took advantage of his moment of relative weakness. An uprising which he crushed pretty brutally.

Coming down on the side of the dictator as his people rebelled would put us in the unenviable position we've been in a whole lot of times before...assisting a brutal regime as they crushed dissent.

We could come in (as you say) guns-a-blazing and go full "regime change," but as we saw in Iraq that's not exactly a "do no harm" option either.

We chose to support the rebellion generally and a few groups in particular, but without "boots on the ground" and from a safe distance. It has turned out badly, but I fail to see how staying out of it entirely, going "all in" or (worse) backing Qadaffi would have turned out better.

The old saying goes, if you want to make an omelet you've got to break some eggs. Well when it comes to Libya the eggs were all going to be broken no matter what.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is that actually true or are you putting words in his mouth? There are radicals out there that want to create all sorts of crap. People like you seem to think giving it a label makes it easier to defeat.

Our intervention (both Iraq and Libya) made sense when you're just looking at the local situation.

In what world did Iraq make sense? The sectarian violence was well predicted by many analysts. Libya was even worse as it lacked any sort of foundation to build a democracy upon.

In a world where there weren't powers like Iran that would try to take advantage of the removal of Saddam.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is that actually true or are you putting words in his mouth? There are radicals out there that want to create all sorts of crap. People like you seem to think giving it a label makes it easier to defeat.

In what world did Iraq make sense? The sectarian violence was well predicted by many analysts. Libya was even worse as it lacked any sort of foundation to build a democracy upon.

In a world where there weren't powers like Iran that would try to take advantage of the removal of Saddam.

Not making sense there. How was removing Hussein helpful against Iran?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a world where there weren't powers like Iran that would try to take advantage of the removal of Saddam.

Not making sense there. How was removing Hussein helpful against Iran?

That's not what I said.

I'm saying that if Iran hadn't used it a way to stick their nose into the issue it would have been better for the Iraqi people. Look at what happened to the Kurds--their areas bloomed.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Still didn't work for me.

Did you try logging in to the archives? It may seem odd, but it is a separate login.

Of course, that you are actually trying is rather impressive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not making sense there. How was removing Hussein helpful against Iran?

That's not what I said.

Sorry. Read it the wrong way.