As the Obama administration wrestles over what to do about Libya, the voices on Capitol Hill offer no consensus on military action.
Influential senators John McCain, a Republican, and John Kerry, a Democrat, have kept up a drumbeat for U.S. military action such as a “no-fly” zone to aid the rebels fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
But other senior lawmakers, like Republicans Senator Richard Lugar and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, are warning against getting the United States into a Libyan war.
Fiddle fiddle while people die from the US administration and computer-game generals. At least my goverment is pushing for action to protect the Libyan populace.
[i]Fiddle fiddle while people die from the US administration and computer-game generals[/i]
What an odd statement. We are booed and protested all around the world for our “imperialism”. And now you accuse us of the deaths of Libyans because we are [so far] sitting this one out.
We have troops and military assets spread all across the globe [including your island nation], we are currently fighting two wars [Iraq is not over yet], and yet we are not doing enough? Instead of pushing for action, go take some if that is what you think is needed.
Just be aware, there are lot of folks over here who are pushing to bring our soldiers and assets home, use the savings to pay down our horrendous debt, build our military back up, and use awesome, deadly, military force when it directly suits our interests.
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.
It is not just me that thinks that – Gaddafi has come to the same view…..which is why he is now bombing people.
Presently, there will be a tragedy which will put Srebenitza and Ruanda in the shade, Captain.
Even the French are showing more spine:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12708175
You haven’t responded to Capt. Deacon Warren’s observation, Pageantmaster, that “We [America] are booed and protested all around the world for our “imperialismâ€. And now you accuse us of the deaths of Libyans because we are [so far] sitting this one out.” I agree the French are showing more spine, but that’s beside the Capt’s point. Are you overall in favor of U.S. intervention in foreign countries? Or only when you think it’s right, and otherwise we Americans are just throwing our weight around? Are we supposed to be the world’s policemen? It’s because of us that Libya doesn’t have nuclear weapons, so give us some credit.
#5 Branford – I am not advocating unilateral US action, but for the US to either keep quiet or support the Anglo-French attempt to get international support for action. In Europe we are well placed to take much of the action needed. Even the Russians have taken action against Libya today, so they might come round to it.
But the public shilly-shallying from US leaders is sending the worst possible message and negatively affecting the interests of the Libyans trying to free themselves from this tyrant who is murdering them.
We are in agreement, Pageantmaster. Unfortunately, as he so often did as a senator, Pres. Obama is voting “present” and not taking any action. I think my reaction was in that you were saying people were dying because of the U.S., yet when we do intervene, even when the intervention includes other countries, we are often castigated by the world – damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
#7 Branford – there is much truth in what you and Captain Deacon Warren say about world-wide perception of US action; which is often not much different to perception of British action. However in this case no one is advocating a ground war; instead either a no-fly zone and/or targetted intevention to prevent Gaddaffi using his aircraft and tanks etc. For example, today’s attack on an oil town was only possible because Gaddaffi brought in forces by sea, which could easily have been prevented. Even a determined warning a few days ago could have made a difference; but now Gaddaffi is testing his way, and finding no substantial resistance – and this story from Washington is a disaster for the Libyans.
I find it curious that many Americans deeply resent that others expect them to intervene militarily around the world, yet are unwilling to see a penny cut from a military budget that exceeds the military spending of the next 10+ budgets combined. I think Eisenhower’s words about the military industrial complex are truer today than when he uttered them. If and/or when American “interests” are threatened in Libya, there will be action.
A couple of thoughts.
1. Remember that Britain stood with the US in Iraq. Alone among the NATO powers the British picked up a rifle, and shed blood. That action earns them the right to speak.
2. European powers are sovereign states, and if they want to intervene, they have every ability to do so. Last I saw, the French Chain of Command did not go through the Pentagon.
3. It is a very bad idea to get involved in this conflict. Choose one side and you become responsible for its actions. We should leave aside the fantasy that whatever Government might replace Gaddafi will be better than Gaddafi. It will likely be worse. Much worse. It certainly will not be a Lockean democracy.
4. The intensity of the conflict is brought about by the fact that defeat means death. There is no alternative to victory. Either way there is going to be a bloodbath at the end of this conflict as the winners take vengeance upon the losers and their families. The only way to prevent it is to intervene, seize power, and enforce western law. Everyone who wants to do that, raise your hand.
carl
btw my #1 would benefit from some commas as some are getting the wrong end of the stick:
‘Fiddle fiddle, while people die, from the US administration and computer-game generals.’
It seems to me that the British and the French should go ahead with whatever it is they think should be done without waiting for Obama to make a decision. He doesn’t like making decisions.
9. WarrenS
The US Military exists to serve and defend the interests of the US. It is not a Rent-a-Globo-Cop to fulfill the fantasies of International Law advocates. If Canada wishes to send forces to intervene in Libya, it is certainly free to do so.
carl
Thank you, Pageantmaster – you’re right, it was your punctuation in #1 that threw me, and how a propos – I’m right in the middle of reading “Comma Sense: A Fundamental Guide to Punctuation”! 🙂
#10 carl – thanks for speaking up, but I am not sure that is right. Gaddaffi is in power only because he is terrifying people who step outside their doors even in the West of Libya, although he is putting up a screen of popularity from soldiers and police told that “all citizens will make merry”.
What is needed is to stop the use of his warplanes to tip the balance against the opposition. I am not convinced there would be a bloodbath on his overthrow any more than there has been in Egypt or Tunisia, but there will be if he wins.
We may be able to help by levelling the imbalance of planes and tanks, but we should no more arm anyone than enter a ground war.
Plus given what has happened before, the likely result of targetting a few planes and tanks is they would do a prompt about face, or join the opposition. There is much about Gaddaffi that is smoke and mirrors.
btw, let me state the obvious. If it wasn’t for that ‘Military Industrial Complex’ in the United States (what Roosevelt called the “Arsenal of Democracy” back when the threat was several orders of magnitude more lethal) there wouldn’t even be an option to intervene in Libya.
carl
Carl (#9), you missed my point. And thank you for the obligatory, “everyone should be eternally grateful to the US” comment. No discussion of US military power would be complete without it.
It’s none of our business. I am sympathetic with the rebels, but this is their war, not ours. We are broke. We are fighting two wars, one of which we were repeatedly assured would be short and cheap. We are not the world’s police department. And Libya is a foreign country, not a US colony or protectorate. Any military intervention would be legally dicey at best under international law (not that we have paid any attention to that in the last 10 years). In any event it is long past time that we Americans learn to mind our own business.
When Libya attacks the United States get back to me and I will reconsider my position. Until then NO MORE MILITARY ADVENTURISM thank you very much. We have expended enough American blood and treasure because of our national compulsion to stick our nose into everyone else’s affairs.
Enough is enough.
#19 AO
[blockquote]When Libya attacks the United States get back to me and I will reconsider my position.[/blockquote]
One of the pieces of information which came out of senior Gaddaffi defectors recently was that Gaddaffi personally approved Lockerbie.
#18 Warren S
We are indeed eternally grateful to the US, for good reason.
Re # 20
PM
Are you advocating that we declare war, invade and occupy Libya? We bombed them as I recall back in the late 80’s. I also recall we blew up and sank a couple of their ships in the Gulf of Sydra (sp?). I could make a stronger case for invading North Korea than what you have put forward.
This is a foreign civil war. It is not our affair. When we stick our nose into other people’s business it almost invariably comes back to bite us in the —. What is it with this neo-con obsession that we need to land the marines or bomb everyone who does something we don’t like?
Aren’t two wars (at least one of which is illegal, immoral and utterly pointless) enough?
18. WarrenS wrote:[blockquote] you missed my point [/blockquote] Did I now. Here is what you wrote.[blockquote] I find it curious that many Americans deeply resent that others expect them to intervene militarily around the world, yet are unwilling to see a penny cut from a military budget that exceeds the military spending of the next 10+ budgets combined.[/blockquote] What right does any other nation have to ‘expect’ the US to ‘intervene militarily’ around the world? What business is it of other nations how much the US spends on its military? And what possibly connects these two concepts (resentment and spending) [i]except the implicit assumption that the only justification for that spending is the ability and willingness to ‘intervene militarily’ when other nations expect us to intervene?[/i] I didn’t miss your point. I understood it exactly. That’s why you included a tired shot against the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ and a claim that the US would intervene in Libya if American interests were threatened. That’s why you put scare quotes around the word ‘interests.’ You were acting on the implicit assumption that American military power should only be used when ‘International Authorities’ deem its use acceptable. I didn’t wear an American Uniform to serve the interests of the ICC or the nabobs in the United Nations.
carl
#22 AO
[blockquote]Are you advocating that we declare war, invade and occupy Libya?[/blockquote]
If you read my comments carefully you will see that I am not advocating that.
But let me ask you one thing: you will remember that at the end of the First Gulf War, the US shilly-shallied about completing the job. Basra rose and was massacred in response when the allies withdrew. This made things far worse, and meant greater long run cost in men and lives, and having been betrayed once, there was no local support in Iraq from Basra and the Shia who instead looked to Iran.
If Gaddaffi gets back into power, what may you expect in the future? Is not the risk to the US and the rest of the world going to be greater? You will remember that the US has been training all these people who have rebelled in the use of social networking to organise their rebellions and with the activity of the US encouraging them to rebel, are they not being betrayed as Basra was?
Gaddaffi will be much more dangerous than Hussein to everyone. And if nothing is done, a massacre is on the way which will put the thousands murdered last month by the regime into the shade in comparison to what will be genocide on a massive scale.
24. Pageantmaster[blockquote] you will remember that at the end of the First Gulf War, the US shilly-shallied about completing the job.[/blockquote] The US made a deliberate choice in 1991 to leave Hussein power in order to avoid all of the trauma that has occurred since the Second Gulf War. “Finishing the job” always involves nation-building. The US was not interested in doing so at the time. It become necessary only when the risk of a nuclear Iraq become so great, the threat had to be mitigated despite the cost.
Regarding what would follow Gaddaffi, the question is not the depth of Gaddaffi’s support, but the uncertainty of who will follow him. Revolutions are not fought for altruistic motives. Whatever the people might expect or whatever we might hope, what will happen is that ruthless people with guns will seize power and use those guns to maintain power. In the uncertainty of a state in which government has collapsed, that power will have to be used to suppress other competitors for power. The winners will not be Jeffersonian democrats.
carl
RE: “I find it curious that many Americans deeply resent that others expect them to intervene militarily around the world, yet are unwilling to see a penny cut from a military budget that exceeds the military spending of the next 10+ budgets combined.”
Not sure how the two are at all connected. It’s understandable that you find it curious that Americans are willing to spend big sums to fulfill the main task of the Federal government as outlined in the Constitution. But you’ve never really approved of the Constitution, which is understandable.
But you know . . . many Americans really do rather like it.
In regards to various other comments I don’t understand why England and France and various other European countries cannot go ahead and do as they desire and establish the no-fly zone.
In #23 Carl said:
Again, you missed my point. Entirely.
27. WarrenS:
I know what you in fact communicated. I don’t know what you intended to communicate, and I don’t know what purpose is served by your enigmatic denials. I only know what you wrote. My understanding is consistent with your words to the last jot and tittle. If you have something else to say, then say it.
carl
Carl, I was in a crabby mood when I wrote my first comment and acknowledge its uncharitableness. I’ll drop it (although I suspect that some will understand what I was driving at). You may be happy to know that, after spending five years on US soil (two different occasions) serving shoulder to shoulder with my American comrades in arms – whom I respect greatly – I’ll soon be returning to Canada. I’m far enough along in my career (34 years of regular service) that I know I won’t return a third time. There is much I like and admire about your country (along with things I don’t), but I’m glad to be returning to mine; even with high taxes, much colder winters, and gas nearing $6 US/gal in some places. How many years did you spend in uniform by the way?
This is one of the reasons why it’s a bad idea to get involved in a war with no ready way out — much less two of them. Whatever we might decide we want or don’t want to do militarily in Libya, the fact that we’re so deeply committed in Iraq and Afghanistan greatly limits our options.
Last I heard (which admittedly was some time ago) the Pentagon’s goal was to maintain a force capable of sustaining two major regional conflicts at the same time. Well, that’s pretty much what we’re doing now, which means we don’t have much left over.
A large part of the power of a military force is not what you do with it, but what your opponents know that you could do with it. The more tied down your force is in actual conflict, the fewer options you have for other things you could do with it… and your opponents, not being dumb, know this.
Nasty question, WarrenS.
Next you will be asking by how many inches that uniform doesn’t fit any more… (one I personally dread).
Ross (#30), your military (assuming you’re an American) says they’ve ceased combat operations in Iraq.
Now that they think that, in this particular case, intervention is appropriate, Europe is all for intervention. And of course they want to use American power. But they are quick to condemn, when they don’t think intervention is necessary. So when is intervention necessary? When ever the Europeans think that is is and its not when they don’t. So how can you tell? You can’t. A poem from Rudyard Kipling comes to mind:
I went into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.â€
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the Street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go awayâ€;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins,†when the band begins to play—
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ‘adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outsideâ€;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins†when the trooper’s on the tide—
Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?â€â€˜
But it’s “Thin red line of ‘eroes†when the drums begin to roll—
We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too.
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind,â€
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,†when there’s trouble in the wind—
You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!â€
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country†when the guns begin to shoot;â€
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!
Tommy by Rudyard Kipling
George Will provided some thought provoking questions for Americans to consider on a eyes wide-open basis;
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_90f590f5-af5c-53ea-8f09-0dce4893858f.html
RE: “Nasty question, WarrenS.”
Yup — but defensiveness and insecurity will do that to you, MichaelA, not to mention having to deal with all these nasty American political conservatives.
It’s like a revisionist asking a conservative in a debate about abortion if “he” has ever had a child.
#32 WarrenS says:
Yes, they do say that.
Sarah, what took you so long? I’m disappointed. :>)
The question had no ulterior motive – I respect anyone with military service and was simply interested. If you knew something about my military, you would immediately recognize that 34 years means I’m one year from the maximum 35 year pension – and would suspect that that is the likely motivator for me carrying on (you would also be aware that careers the length of mine are much more common in the Canadian military than the US military). I attach no special significance to my military service and often wonder what else I might have done with my life. If you knew something about my military you would also know that those of us who wear the uniform are largely invisible in our society and generally get no special respect from the civilian sector. I don’t believe that most of us expect or think we deserve same. I know I don’t. 34 years just gives one a perspective that other people may not have. Wisdom in how to apply that perspective does not necessarily come with age – or with years of service.
37. WarrenS [blockquote] The question had no ulterior motive – I respect anyone with military service and was simply interested. [/blockquote] OK, I will take you at your word on that. I punched out after four years. My career was a victim of the implosion of Joint Spouse assignments in the mid 80’s. My wife was also on active duty at the time, and staying in would have meant a 51-month separation at the start of our marriage. I was unwilling to pay that cost. It was a hard and bitter decision for someone who put on his first uniform at age 11, and never planned to take it off.
carl
Carl, separations is one area where I have special respect (and sympathy) for my American colleagues. Although deployments increased significantly with out involvement in Afghanistan, overall we don’t deploy nearly as much as the US military. Had I been faced with a decision like yours I’m pretty sure I would have punched out as well.
The banner heading for this thread stated,
“No consensus seen in Congress for U.S. Libya action”
More important than a consensus within Congress at a point in time is the need for Congress to have the political intestinal fortitude to “stay the course” over an extended period of time.
And Congress’s record for showing intestinal fortitude has historically been very poor.
Congressmen who are ‘quick’ to place the lives of U.S. Servicemen in danger have generally shown that they have a weak stomach for risking their chances at reelection.
Although there are always exceptions to statements that broadly and accurately describe human behavior, a study of the history of the U. S. Congress in the second half of the 20th Century shows that it generally has not been a body consisting of highly principled and courageous men/women.
If US intervention in Lybya is necessary, then it should only be after an official declaration of war by the Congress. This is not an emergency requiring immediate action as the dithering to this point proves. Otherwise the President has no legitimate authority to commit US troops.
Anglican First at #40 makes some very good points.
Br Michael at #41 wrote: “This is not an emergency requiring immediate action as the dithering to this point proves.” A point of logic – It is possible for human beings to dither, even when an emergency clearly requires immediate action. I am not saying your characterisation of this one is wrong (its not my problem) but just saying that whether or not an emergency is of a particular type is surely an objective consideration?
Sarah wrote:
“Yup—but defensiveness and insecurity will do that to you, MichaelA, not to mention having to deal with all these nasty American political conservatives.”
I am certainly defensive and insecure when I conmpare my old uniforms with my current clothes. And I note that there seem to be plenty of “American political conservatives” on both sides of the isolationist/interventionist debate.