Obama's handling of conflict in Libya shows weakness?

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.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

Albatross wrote:Y'see, that's a great misconception - Britain in the 1700s wasn't a despotism, it was a parliamentary democracy similar to how it is today. The Monarchy still has (theoretical) power, but doesn't exercise it anywhere near as much as it used too.

I know that the monarchy of the 1700's is not the same as the mornarchy of the 12 and 1300's. And I know that the Magna Carta (a great gift to western civilization by the way) limited the kings power since the early 1500's or something like that. But what we're taught over here is that the Empire at the time was still very much a command economy. According to a lot of English philosophers leading up to the revolution command economies are not fiscally ideal and they repress the freedoms of the population. So that line of thinking on top of a sentiment that the king was looking out for England and not English citizens living in the colonies, combined with a growing sense of indentify as a Virginian or Carolinian etc, and some other things all contributed to the revolution. I know that King George was not executing people at a whim or taking women by force or anything that the worst dictators due. But we are still taught that in a lot of ways he was fairly oppressive to the colonists. It's all about perspective, I don't think King George or the English citizens at the time were bad people, they had to sleep at night just like all us so from their perspective they were able to justify what was going on for the good of the empire or whatever reason. The colonists saw it differently which is was the whole thing was about. But it's all long in the past and I personally feel like Americans as a whole have more in common with the English than any other people (except maybe Canadians, but that's because they live so close, and you can't even tell them apart until they finish their sentence). But coming from common ancestry (for a lot of us at least) and common political traditions that only makes sense. Way off topic again, stopping now.

**Albatross**

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
Albatross wrote:Y'see, that's a great misconception - Britain in the 1700s wasn't a despotism, it was a parliamentary democracy similar to how it is today. The Monarchy still has (theoretical) power, but doesn't exercise it anywhere near as much as it used too.

I know that the monarchy of the 1700's is not the same as the mornarchy of the 12 and 1300's. And I know that the Magna Carta (a great gift to western civilization by the way) limited the kings power since the early 1500's or something like that. But what we're taught over here is that the Empire at the time was still very much a command economy. According to a lot of English philosophers leading up to the revolution command economies are not fiscally ideal and they repress the freedoms of the population. So that line of thinking on top of a sentiment that the king was looking out for England and not English citizens living in the colonies, combined with a growing sense of indentify as a Virginian or Carolinian etc, and some other things all contributed to the revolution. I know that King George was not executing people at a whim or taking women by force or anything that the worst dictators due. But we are still taught that in a lot of ways he was fairly oppressive to the colonists. It's all about perspective...

Agreed, though I would point out that the decision to raise (fairly insignificant) taxes from the colonists was due to the fact that the British at home were already being bled dry by the costs of defending the colonies during the French Indian war. They were an attempt to get America to contribute to the costs of it's defence, which up to that point it hadn't been.

**ArtfcllyFlvrd**

Albatross wrote:Agreed, though I would point out that the decision to raise (fairly insignificant) taxes from the colonists was due to the fact that the British at home were already being bled dry by the costs of defending the colonies during the French Indian war. They were an attempt to get America to contribute to the costs of it's defence, which up to that point it hadn't been.

But how can you tax citizens that have no representation in the body that is taxing them? Oh no, it's happening again!

**SilverMK2**

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:But how can you tax citizens that have no representation in the body that is taxing them? Oh no, it's happening again!

"Gi'uz yer moneh!"

*waves army under your nose*

**Bromsy**

If people really press me on it, I'd have to say that Monarchy is the best system of government. As long as it's not hereditary, and there are some absolute limits to power.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I disagree with labeling the Civil War as a revolution, in the standard definition of the term, politically speaking.

**The Crusader Of 42**

Half of these posts made me lose faith in humanity.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:bs. The US didin't get involve with other powers not bordering its territory or messing with its citizens until the 20th Century. We did just fine. Japan and Asia have done just fine growing to world powers without send their soldiers to die across the world for people and countries not worth spit. You go. I'll hold the door open for you.

How do you know so little about the history of your own country?

In the 1850s the US put troops into Nicuragua, and did it again in the 1890s, to protect resources and US businesses in the country.

The US put troops into Panama to protect economic interests. They did this on four different times.

And yes, the fights with the Barbary pirates were US operations to protect their shipping routes... which are exactly the kind of conflict I'm talking about.

So, I'll say it again; "No country has ever achieved a notable level of wealth without international trade, and international trade means becoming dependant on resource flows and overseas markets. And that means that at some point you have to send tanks and bombers overseas to make sure you keep access to those things."

Please accept this as the completely and entirely true thing that it is. And then realise that your calls for isolationism made little real sense 200 years ago, and make even less now, given how much more international trade there is.

And you're claiming Japan have done just fine without sending their troops overseas... that's because they're reliant on you guys to go in for them. Before they were under the blanket of US protection they were very, very keen on expanding overseas to ensure their supply of resources. And before that they were an isolated nation of no economic import. Which is exactly the situation I described.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think Frazzled is right here. Before the 20th century we really were pretty isolationist

This is the Monroe Doctrine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine. It's an important piece of your history, and neatly sums up the US approach to foreign affairs.

It states that the US will respect existing European colonies, but will not tolerate any further colonisation in the Americas.

This was the US idea of isolation - isolation from Europe. Not isolation from anyone else, because they understood the importance of trade, and therefore the importance of protecting key resources overseas and protecting trade routes. And they were willing to ship troops overseas to protect these things.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I'm pretty sure that the Phillipines are their own nation now, we have protectorates but we don't have any colonies.

Giving it back generations later doesn't mean it wasn't a colony. Was Britain never an imperial power because they've handed control over now?

I would be hard pressed to say that we are imperialistic because we don't keep too much of what we win.

It means you aren't imperialist in the way that, say, Japan was. This is good, well done.

Pretending you don't have a long history of overseas military operations to protect economic interests is delusional, though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:In the end we can say 'feth the world' because we really don't get a lot of fanmail for it you know. I would rather have an independent nation that can defend itself against any aggressors than a nation that is charged with defending all nations from aggressors.

But you can't simply disappear behind your own borders, and still maintain the international trade that makes you the richest country on Earth. That's the point, that's why Fraz is wrong, and that's why you're wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Well, the US isn't really imperialist, we're like imperialist-lite. We'll let you behave however you want, but once you start threatening to disrupt the capitalist worldwide trade network, we'll cut you off. If you keep acting like a beligerant arse, we'll either send you money and ask you nicely to hide in your palace, or send in the Air Force to drop high explosives on you.

Sometimes one will follow the other.

Really, we're the guardians of capitalism (the current president being a notable exception), freedom is a secondary objective.

Yes, definitely. This is what I tried to explain to Frazzled. He didn't agree, for reasons that are likely impossible to fathom.

**Frazzled**

The Crusader Of 42 wrote:Half of these posts made me lose faith in humanity.

Only half? This is indeed an above par thread then.

**Frazzled**

Finally a reason to like Gates

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0e2de0c-45d7-11e0-acd8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Fad8PMU1

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b0e2de0c-45d7-11e0-acd8-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1FdG9HHo3

US loses its appetite for job as the world’s policeman
By Richard McGregor in Washington

Published: March 3 2011 21:26 | Last updated: March 3 2011 21:26

As Washington and its allies began quietly talking about a forceful response to the Libyan crisis last Friday, the US defence secretary mounted the podium at the US Military Academy in West Point, New York, to make a surprising declaration.

Robert Gates said that any future defence secretary who advised the president to send a big US land army to Asia, the Middle East or Africa “ ‘should have his head examined’, as General MacArthur so delicately put it.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Sectarian violence flares in Bahrain - Mar-04UK freezes Libyan wealth fund assets - Mar-04In depth: Middle East protests - Feb-27Rome sits at hub of former colony’s web - Mar-03Libya lurches towards civil war - Mar-03Davies quits LSE over Libyan donations - Mar-03It was a remarkable statement from one of the country’s most experienced national security bureaucrats, and someone who has overseen a surge in troop deployments to Iraq and, more recently, to Afghanistan.

These few lines – in a considered speech to cadets at the academy on how the US army should train modern-day officers – garnered few headlines, falling as they did late in the weekly news cycle.

But in combination with the strangely sober debate in Washington over how the US should respond to the epochal changes in the Middle East, it crystallised the arrival of a new era in US foreign policy.

Political debate in Washington these days is propelled by an incendiary combination of deep partisanship and the jet fuel of 24-hour cable news. But such rancour has largely been absent from discussion about President Barack Obama’s response to the unfolding drama in the Arab world.

The administration has struggled at times to keep up with the dizzying pace of events across Middle Eastern countries, and some critics say the White House did not emphatically back pro-democracy protesters early enough.

Senators such as John McCain have urged a more aggressive military posture with Libya to prise Muammer Gaddafi from power. The neo-cons, who combined democratic idealism with brute military force with devastating political effect in the wake of 9/11, have also resurfaced, but only mildly and at the margins of the debate.

The Republicans once owned the national security issue in Washington. But in the current environment, few are willing to second-guess Mr Obama’s handling of the crisis. Most debate recognises that the administration is largely a bit player on the Arab street, and that it is no easy job in any case to square traditional foreign policy interests with democracy promotion.

The reticence to politicise the crisis has deeper roots than merely concern about being caught backing the wrong side in distant civil conflicts.

The US is a different country today after 10 years of war, struggling with record deficits and suffering from “intervention fatigue”, in the words of Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank.

In such a context, Mr Gates’s statement about the madness of dispatching US ground troops overseas simply seems like common sense. “It is a very rare admission of something that is all too true but very rarely articulated by someone of that stature,” said Aaron David Miller, a former state department official.

Mr Gates was quick to dampen down what he called “loose talk” about the west enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. Such a policy, he reminded Congress in testimony on Wednesday, would start with an attack on Libya’s air defences.

The drift from robust interventionism towards relative isolationism has homegrown roots as well. The Republicans’ political focus is squarely on the budget deficit and making sure that any fallout from the tough economy is hung on Mr Obama.

For Republicans, the protests over benefit cuts in Madison, Wisconsin, are more important than the rebels in Benghazi, Libya. While the Middle East protests may have gripped public attention in the US, Mr Haass says “they have not really galvanised public opinion”.

Following Mr Gates’s West Point speech, both he and his spokesman have been quick to clarify that the defence secretary’s real intent was to force the army to focus on how to fight new kinds of wars.

Whatever message he wanted to send, Mr Gates probably knows better than anyone that the US is not just less able to be the world’s policeman. The country and its people have, for the moment, lost all appetite for the job as well.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Print article Email article Clip this article Order reprints

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Finally a reason to like Gates

You didn't like the guy who has made it his mission to cut useless, or inefficient military programs, and has had good success doing so?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Finally a reason to like Gates

You didn't like the guy who has made it his mission to cut useless, or inefficient military programs, and has had good success doing so?

Not as good as I would have done.

You! Who are you? You're fired!
You! this coffee is cold. you're terminated!

**Albatross**

The weird thing is, this time around there may have been a real shot at getting international consensus at what most people would have considered a just intervention. Sadly, it looks like our best chance of getting rid of Gadaffi may be slipping away.

**Frazzled**

We intervene-
Then what?

What happens when the first IED goes off?

**Melissia**

Intervention doesn't mean we have troops on the ground. A simple no fly zone would work wonders I think.

Still a risk to the flyboys mind you, but it would let the rebels (And they ARE rebels by now) and civilians not be bombed to hell by their dictator, and give them a sense of accomplishment.

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:The weird thing is, this time around there may have been a real shot at getting international consensus at what most people would have considered a just intervention. Sadly, it looks like our best chance of getting rid of Gadaffi may be slipping away.

I think part of it is that none of the powers that be are really convinced that getting rid of Gaddafi is a good idea. After all, he was finally starting to play ball.

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:Intervention doesn't mean we have troops on the ground. A simple no fly zone would work wonders I think.

Still a risk to the flyboys mind you, but it would let the rebels (And they ARE rebels by now) and civilians not be bombed to hell by their dictator, and give them a sense of accomplishment.

Nonsense. No fly zone means we have to take out AAA, SAM, and radar installations.
We had a no fly zone in Iraq. Look how well that worked out.

**Bakerofish**

my problem with military interventions is that they mostly end up half-assed.

either dont do it, or if you do, COMMIT! and see it to a definitive conclusion.

there will be whining for sure. "its too expensive! our boys are dying etc etc etc..."

what do people expect in a military conflict for crying out loud?

dont intervene. or go balls out if you do. itll be better for everyone

**jp400**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Albatross wrote:
biccat wrote:
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!

Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.

That's not strictly true - in any case, it seems to have worked out pretty well for us these last 1500+ years...

In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.

I thought this thread was about being belligerent.

And I see your working wonders on improving the thread, Shumatroll.

Also Bakerofish, I would say that almost a decade long war is commitment enough, wouldn't you agree?

**ShumaGorath**

jp400 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Albatross wrote:
biccat wrote:
mattyrm wrote:So your against Monarchy because you (might) have had ancestors fight in the revolutionary war?!

Actually my dislike of the English Monarchy is (mostly) tongue in cheek. It's a silly antiquated notion that your country has, but there's nothing really wrong with it. It's not like the nobility still runs the country.

That's not strictly true - in any case, it seems to have worked out pretty well for us these last 1500+ years...

In any case, this thread isn't a USA vs. UK thread - it's about US imperialism. Let's discuss that. Incidentally, it should be noted that I'm not using the 'term' imperialist as a pejorative.

I thought this thread was about being belligerent.

And I see your working wonders on improving the thread, Shumatroll.

Also Bakerofish, I would say that almost a decade long war is commitment enough, wouldn't you agree?

Sometimes you improve a wound by cutting off the limb.

Nonsense. No fly zone means we have to take out AAA, SAM, and radar installations.
We had a no fly zone in Iraq. Look how well that worked out.

Didn't the no fly zone work quite well for preventing flying?

**Frazzled**

It worked great except for all those bombing runs we had to do yearly when they lit up coalition planes.

How many years are you going to do this?

Where are the aircraft going to fly from again?

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:Intervention doesn't mean we have troops on the ground. A simple no fly zone would work wonders I think.

Still a risk to the flyboys mind you, but it would let the rebels (And they ARE rebels by now) and civilians not be bombed to hell by their dictator, and give them a sense of accomplishment.

Nonsense. No fly zone means we have to take out AAA, SAM, and radar installations.
We had a no fly zone in Iraq. Look how well that worked out.

Quite well if memory serves. The only time aircraft were shot down in Iraq during the No Fly Zone days were friendly fire incidents, and one single craft being shot down by air to air-- a UAV.

**Bakerofish**

jp400 wrote:
Also Bakerofish, I would say that almost a decade long war is commitment enough, wouldn't you agree?

well one has to ask himself why it took that long in the first place. and after that decade ask himself what was accomplished.

did you solve the original problem? did you create more and worse problems after that?

**Frazzled**

Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.

I freely admit I have learned from the Iraq fiasco.

How many years are gong to keep this no fly zone in place?

What are you going to do when the bodies start being shown on TV? What about when children get accidently zapped?

What do those pilots do when they see government forces/rebel group A massacring rebel group B or other civilians?

**Bakerofish**

about the no fly zone:

yeah this works...if it was alongside a good aggressive program on land.

"okay i cant bomb civilians anymore...time to do this the old fashioned way *cocks ak47*"

**Melissia**

Until it is no longer necessary.

As opposed to the bodies being shown now on tV where Libya is bombing its own citizens, as the citizens are actively ASKING for a no-fly zone to stop the bombings?

That's currently not happening.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.

I freely admit I have learned from the Iraq fiasco.

How many years are gong to keep this no fly zone in place?

What are you going to do when the bodies start being shown on TV? What about when children get accidently zapped?

What do those pilots do when they see government forces/rebel group A massacring rebel group B or other civilians?

I think we'd stop once Gadaffi fell and no ones ordering the planes to bomb protesters any more. We're not in it to win it like in Iraq, we have no real vested interest beyond short term stability in libya. You should probably stop comparing the two so heavily, the situations are really quite different.

**Bakerofish**

keeping the skies clear still leaves gadaffi the old fashioned way of killing his people

and an air-based program simply doesnt work if you dont have a land or sea based initiative to support it.

again, all out or nothing at all

**ShumaGorath**

Bakerofish wrote:keeping the skies clear still leaves gadaffi the old fashioned way of killing his people

and an air-based program simply doesnt work if you dont have a land or sea based initiative to support it.

again, all out or nothing at all

He's losing the old fashioned way given that large swathes of his army have defected. Heavy armor and air power are his only real advantages. Setting up a no fly zone would quickly (and frankly, easily) remove one of the two.

**Melissia**

Bakerofish wrote:again, all out or nothing at all

I choose a third option, as I deny your black or white view of the world.

**Bakerofish**

@shuma

yeah he's losing but how long do you think itll take for him to lose? It took the US how long to get Saddam as he was losing? And thats with a land, sea and air based initiative.

@melissia

whats the third option? no fly? see above. half-assed

im not thinking in black and white here. Im thinking efficiency. im thinking effectiveness.

if you have a third option that will work im sure the folks in the UN and the pentagon would like to hear it