Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/03/11 22:52:26
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
US President Barack Obama has blamed UK Prime Minister David Cameron and other European leaders for the current chaos in Libya, saying he had “more faith” in them being invested in the follow-up, given Libya’s proximity.
Speaking to The Atlantic, Obama acknowledged the problems faced by Libya since the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, referring to the situation as a “mess” – and in private as a “s**t show.”
“...We actually executed this plan as well as I could have expected: We got a UN mandate, we built a coalition, it cost us $1 billion — which, when it comes to military operations, is very cheap. We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess,” he said.
In March of 2011, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution on Libya authorizing the international community to “take all necessary measures” to protect the civilian population. The resolution called for an immediate ceasefire in Libya and creating a no-fly zone over the country.
After the resolution was passed, however, a US-led coalition proceeded to intensively bomb the Libyan army.
“It is unacceptable to use the mandate subsequent upon UN Resolution 1973, the adoption of which was quite an ambiguous move, to achieve the goals which clearly are beyond its scope as the resolution stipulates only measures to protect civilian population,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
READ MORE: Calls grow for allies to stop air strikes on Libya
Obama went on to state that the ‘mess’ was largely due to the inaction of British Prime Minister David Cameron, who was “distracted by a range of other things” at the time.
He also criticized France’s then-President Nicolas Sarkozy for being too eager to take credit for the intervention to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.
"Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign," Obama said, "despite the fact that [the US] had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure."
Obama said that such bragging on the part of Sarkozy was fine, because it allowed the US to “purchase France's involvement in a way that made it less expensive for us and less risky for us.”
There was just one problem with that plan, according to the US president.
But Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, told RT that although Cameron and Sarkozy are also responsible for the chaos in Libya, Obama is the "major responsible figure."
"I believe Obama realized that it was a huge mistake and miscalculation, and he is trying to blame everybody else except himself," he said, adding that such a move by an American president is "unprecedented."
He went on to stress that the current situation in Libya is "much, much worse than it used to be during the Gaddafi regime."
"It is a huge mess there, bloodshed, a failed state, militia controlling most of the country. Also now, Islamic State has more than 7,000 fighters in Libya," he said.
The West "deposed Gaddafi, and they left. And after that, who took over? The militia. Armed militia...the whole region, North Africa, is destabilized because of the British and American and French intervention. How can we solve it? It may be too late now. Libya is dismantled completely, Libya is a tribal country now, a militia country, so it's not a state anymore," Atwan concluded.
‘Free riders’
Speaking more generally on what he calls a “free rider” mentality in times of conflict, Obama explained that EU countries have had a “habit” of pushing the US to act over the past several decades, but then shown “an unwillingness to put any skin in the game.”
The US president went on to stress that “free riders aggravate me.”
Obama recently stood up to ‘free rider’ Cameron, warning that the UK would no longer be able to maintain its so-called “special relationship” with the US if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.
“You have to pay your fair share,” the US president told his British counterpart at the G7 summit in June 2015. Cameron subsequently met the 2 percent threshold.
But Obama didn't place all the blame on Cameron and Sarkozy. He admitted that the “degree of tribal division in Libya was greater than our analysts had expected. And our ability to have any kind of structure there that we could interact with and start training and start providing resources broke down very quickly.”
Speaking to a former colleague in the US Senate recently, Obama declared that the outcome of Libya was enough evidence to show him that “there is no way we should commit to governing the Middle East and North Africa...that would be a basic, fundamental mistake.”
Libya has been consumed by violence since the 2011 NATO-led campaign to topple Gaddafi, with rival governments and armed groups fighting for control of the oil-rich North African country. It has become a key operating base for Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). A UN report published Thursday said that IS had "significantly expanded" the amount of territory it controls in the country.
Meanwhile, there have been reports that the UK is mulling the possibility of stepping up its involvement in the country amid fears that its campaign against IS in Syria and Iraq needs to be widened to include Libya.
Responding to Obama's comments to the Atlantic, a British government spokesperson said: “I think we would share the President of the United States' assessment that there are real challenges in Libya, that's why we are continuing to work hard with our international partners to support a process in Libya that puts in place a government that can bring stability to that country and why we are talking about how we can support such a government in the future,” as cited by the British media.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/11 22:54:23
2016/03/11 23:14:09
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
After following Bush into Iraq and Afghanistan the political will for effective follow through was just not there.
It turned into a "throw some bombs and hope for the best" show. Nation building is expensive and often bloody as history tends to show that the old one needs to be torn down 1st (in the example of European empire building) or wholesale cultural overthrow (in the example of Roman expansion into Britain).
No nation wanted to spend the blood and gold.
2016/03/11 23:18:41
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2016/03/11 23:21:42
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
The response in Europe is pretty much a shrug of the shoulders and a meh.
Most people in Britain didn't want to touch Libya with a barge pole, after the disaster of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we've came to the conclusion that however bad Middle Eastern dictators are, sometimes it's better to leave them in power, because the alternative is much more...
As for the special relationship, I beleive it's a running joke in Washington, and most people here, in my experience, couldn't give two hoots about it.
The only people who fuss over it are our politicians, as they desperately hold on for some 'prestige' or something.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/03/11 23:37:34
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Libya is responsible for Libya at the end of the day. That said, I agree with Obama that Cameron was intensely gung-ho about the whole thing, wanting his foreign military victory stamp on his politician card, he pressured the US into it, and then lost interest once Gadaffi was gone and he could claim 'victory'.
In reality, it was no more a 'victory' than removing Hussein was a 'victory' in Iraq. Sure, you toppled a third world regime with a powerful coalition of First World militaries. Whoop de doo. So what? As Yahtzee said about WW2, 'It was the last time we ever got a proper victory over an unambiguously evil enemy, unlike all of these wishy-washy modern wars, where we just run in, stamp all over the leader's face, and rush out declaring victory about time the local population are forced to start eating their own dead'.
It's started to feel like the Western World has a roulette wheel with every dictator's face on that they spin once every ten years. If it's not you that the ball lands on? Congrats, you get another decade of being feted, wined and dined, and generally left alone. We'll trade with you, send our police to advise you on managing the population, and sell you all the guns and tech you want. If you got picked though? Suddenly your evil genocidal ways can be tolerated no longer, and we'll have to smash your regime back to the stone age!
I have no issue with war in pursuit of moral goals, and not even with war in pursuit of specific valuable political/military/economic goals necessarily. Too often these days though, it feels like we do randomised drive by military assaults to fulfill nebulous personal objectives of domestic politicians. Our politicians don't play the Great Game so much as they want to tick their 'legacy' bingo boxes and waltz about in front of cameras pretending to be 'Great Statesmen' (instead of actually doing the things that would earn that title).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/11 23:45:21
2016/03/11 23:41:51
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Sigvatr wrote: Just popped up in my newsfeed. Don't use RT as a source please, though. Will read the entire manifest asap.
What's with RT?
Besides it being a mouth piece for the russian government?
If you watch RT with the full knowledge that they'll never run a bad story about Putin, you end up being pleasently surprised by the quality of some of their non-Russian related stories.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/03/11 23:43:35
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Plus. Hmmm. He was president when they joined Europe bombing it. Oh. Yeah.
He leads them into it too.
Plus UK did not want to touch Libya . People saw it for gak it was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/11 23:44:21
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
2016/03/11 23:50:38
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Wales: Where the Men are Men and the sheep are Scared.
I hardly think the UK is responsible for how much of a cluster feth it is there. But we certainly didn't help matters. Fire and forget bombs do not work when you are attacking a force embedded in among the populous.
2016/03/11 23:53:41
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
What the UK government does, and what the population want, are two separate things. If you look at the news you'll see all manner of issues where the government is acting in the interests of the incumbent oligarchs and their private interests at the detriment of the people.
Libya is just another example of how out of touch they are.
Thousand Sons: 3850pts / Space Marines Deathwatch 5000pts / Dark Eldar Webway Corsairs 2000pts / Scrapheap Challenged Orks 1500pts / Black Death 1500pts
Let's be fair to Cameron though, he didn't have much in the way of equipment to make war. Maybe he thought sending the odd obsolete Tornado across to bomb some nondescript dune that looked vaguely tank like would be enough.
Now, if only he hadn't sold off the Navy's perfectly serviceable Harrier Fleet replete with Carriers for rock bottom prices...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/11 23:57:27
2016/03/11 23:59:54
Subject: Re:Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Obama's cock up on this was assuming he could pick up where Bush43 left it and that the politics would be the same as they were 10 years ago. We all saw Team America and western Europe decided it didn't want a replay of that. Cameron's cock up was in wanting his war tick in the box and promising it to Obama (incorrectly presuming he could generate enough support).
Obama doesn't appreciate the nuances of a parliamentary democracy (as evidenced by some of his recent quotes) and so blames Cameron for not giving him the military alliance he was promised.
Some childish naivety all around from top politicians on both sides of the pond.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/12 00:19:11
2016/03/12 00:42:14
Subject: Re:Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
At the end of the day it doesn't matter anyways, since there can't be any kind of real change & actual advancement in the Middle East, until Islam pulls itself out of 1200AD and smells the 21st century.
2016/03/12 02:40:48
Subject: Re:Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Experiment 626 wrote: At the end of the day it doesn't matter anyways, since there can't be any kind of real change & actual advancement in the Middle East, until Islam pulls itself out of 1200AD and smells the 21st century.
Not gonna happen anytime soon, Cap'n. Jordan is the only country in the region that has come the closest, without resorting to a secular dicatorship or military run junta. And the government is still on the constant lookout for fundies and bomb chuckers amongst their population.
Proud Purveyor Of The Unconventional In 40k
2016/03/12 02:40:55
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
Sigvatr wrote: Just popped up in my newsfeed. Don't use RT as a source please, though. Will read the entire manifest asap.
What's with RT?
Besides it being a mouth piece for the russian government?
Yeah, that does not mean all of their stuff is bad though. RT has a lot of good articles too.
Obama is being stupid. The US fully shares the blame for the bombing of Lybia and the resulting mess. France and the UK would have never done anything without US support.
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/03/12 03:04:24
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
I, for one, laughed when I heard this. Obama cannot complain about being tepid with his military excursions when the other parties asked to participate cannot see an endgame. Removing Assad would've been disastrous, and as we've seen with Daesh' ability to give his army all they can handle, that decision likely would've given them a lot more territory /materiel to work with to further their global goals of jihad. Of course, Obama wasn't alone, he had plenty of Progressive GOP members on his side in John McCain (who cannot stop fighting Vietnam) and Lindsey Graham being the two of the biggest in the Senate.
I am glad this plan went no where, I am sure many Britons and French folks feel the same way.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Res Ipsa Loquitor
2016/03/12 08:05:10
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
carlos13th wrote: I hardly think the UK is responsible for how much of a cluster feth it is there. But we certainly didn't help matters. Fire and forget bombs do not work when you are attacking a force embedded in among the populous.
Bombs did work in Libya. The government was overthrown and replaced with a more west friendly regime. There were two main reasons for this; first, the government forces worked more like conventional military than guerillas, second, because we had a local militia spotting targets and following up successful attacks.
The problem is that the country and neighbours were and are so fragmented that the new regime was immediately under attack from various militia groups, some of them being Islamist extremist, supported ultimately by the Wahhabi paymasters who are behind ISIL and Al Quaeda.
Europe was never going to put boots on the ground after the Afghanistan and Iraq experiences, so our best choice was to strongly support a selected local militia group.
Now the population is mixed up like you say, and target selection becomes very difficult.
In retrospect, the best plan would have been to do nothing. This probably would also have been the best choice for the Syrian civil war, but I expect we still would have 3 million refugees in Turkey anyway, and we would not be able to attack ISIL in Syria so they would have an excellent safe haven.
As to whether this is all Cameron's fault, I don't think it can be completely blamed on him. The whole history of western involvement in the middle east leads up to the current position.
Experiment 626 wrote: At the end of the day it doesn't matter anyways, since there can't be any kind of real change & actual advancement in the Middle East, until Islam pulls itself out of 1200AD and smells the 21st century.
I think it more has to do with the western world continually bombing their stability and governments back to 1200 AD than anything else.
Wulfmar wrote: What the UK government does, and what the population want, are two separate things. If you look at the news you'll see all manner of issues where the government is acting in the interests of the incumbent oligarchs and their private interests at the detriment of the people.
Not to be too nitpicky, but you have a typo here; you said "UK" instead of "US"... oh, wait.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/12 09:54:16
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/12 12:02:32
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/03/12 12:30:00
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
The problem is that the country and neighbours were and are so fragmented that the new regime was immediately under attack from various militia groups, some of them being Islamist extremist, supported ultimately by the Wahhabi paymasters who are behind ISIL and Al Quaeda.
That's the politest term for Saudi Arabia I've heard today.
2016/03/12 13:26:25
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
It's interesting to have the American point of view about Sarkozy.
It is exactly this, even in France everyone knew it: Sarkozy wanted a military victory before the elections.
However, it was presented like an european operation, with little support from the USA.
And French Navy/Air Force was the tip of the spear, bombing everyone everyday, of course.
Some journalists said Sarkozy wanted Gadafhi dead because Gadafhi threathened Sarkozy to reveal he financed his election, so if it is true, the roulette wasn't random this time.
Experiment 626 wrote: At the end of the day it doesn't matter anyways, since there can't be any kind of real change & actual advancement in the Middle East, until Islam pulls itself out of 1200AD and smells the 21st century.
I think it more has to do with the western world continually bombing their stability and governments back to 1200 AD than anything else.
That one is great. Exalted. There is truth in it too. Hadn't the West and Israel bombed the old Arab nationalists into oblivion, islamic extremism would never have gotten a chance. Libya is a perfect example.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/12 14:27:29
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
2016/03/12 15:12:06
Subject: Obama blames Britain and France for Lybian mess
carlos13th wrote: I hardly think the UK is responsible for how much of a cluster feth it is there. But we certainly didn't help matters. Fire and forget bombs do not work when you are attacking a force embedded in among the populous.
Bombs did work in Libya. The government was overthrown and replaced with a more west friendly regime. There were two main reasons for this; first, the government forces worked more like conventional military than guerillas, second, because we had a local militia spotting targets and following up successful attacks.
The problem is that the country and neighbours were and are so fragmented that the new regime was immediately under attack from various militia groups, some of them being Islamist extremist, supported ultimately by the Wahhabi paymasters who are behind ISIL and Al Quaeda.
Europe was never going to put boots on the ground after the Afghanistan and Iraq experiences, so our best choice was to strongly support a selected local militia group.
Now the population is mixed up like you say, and target selection becomes very difficult.
You are correct. Oversight on my part I failed differenciate beteween when we first entered and had clearer military targets and now where things are fat more fuzzy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/12 15:26:43