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.

**Andrew1975**

Which, to be fair, is largly because the US has a ridiculously huge DND Budget. Your armed forces even sponsor several professional sports, an act that seems, for the most part, to be exclusive -to- the US. I think another reason that the US Military is so widely hated is because they get involved, even if both sides of a conflict don't necessarily want them there. Rushing in somewhere uninvited, and with guns blazing, isn't the best way to make friends on an international level. Meanwhile most other NATO nations tend to stick more to a peacekeeping role, they go where they're needed/wanted, when asked to do so. Very rarely will they just assert control over another country via military means. That's just the way of it though - the larger a nation's military, the more agressive that nation is going to be. And people might not see the good that sometimes comes from it, because it's outweighed by the bad aspects of such actions.

The US has just been too heavy handed since the Cold War. In WWI the US was largely a background player until they joined in 1917 - one year before the end of the war. Before then, they simply supplied the Allies with extra equipment. And again, it took them 3 years to enter the second world war (It officially started in 1939 when the Nazis invaded Poland), but again, they supplied the Allies with equipment due to Britain's industry being wiped out. The US was much-loved back then, because they weren't invading everyone that had oil and/or gave the President the stink-eye.

I guess all things considered, Americans should be proud of Obama for showing restraint and handling this as per UN and Rebel wishes. They asked for support in all forms, short of putting foreign troops in Libya. So far, that's what the US and NATO are doing. You Yanks want people to stop burning your flags? Win the battle for Hearts and Minds? Then this is an excellent example of how to get there. If these rebels take down Ghadafi, then they're going to remember the US that supported their nation, rather than the US that invaded it. Maybe it's not the ROFLSTOMP that Americans are used to, but that doesn't mean that it's a sign of weakness. Instead, I would say it's an indication that the man on top is using his head instead of his fists to solve a problem, and it's about bloody time.

This all day long

You have a problem with viewing things as The World vs America (and our allies, but they don't really do anything).

But isn't this really the way it is. Really with few exceptions (UK, AUS, etc) our allies and the world have left the US holding the global security bag. And only show up to collect aid checks and tell us what douches we are. The US could have done this alone and charged in like a drunk. But this time we held are hand and forced others to realize we are tired of it. There is no way we get French and Arab league support and get Russia and China to look away if we do this on our own. I think people were getting the blame cannons ready, but we didn't flinch, forcing them into action.

**metallifan**

Well, I just think that if the current trend keeps up, your concerns about the US shouldering most of the logistics will fade away. The only reason it's been that way for the past 50-odd years is because they've been the instigator and/or have had the largest population, largest DND budget, and thus, largest army. And every time you've got a Republican in office down there, it seems to get run off it's feet invading other nations left, right, and centre.

Now the US has a chance to be seen as a mediator and peacekeeper, rather than an enforcer, once more. Why would Americans not give it a chance to happen before throwing out accusations of weak command? It's worked for a large part of the rest of the world.

**Emperors Faithful**

Andrew1975 wrote:But isn't this really the way it is. Really with few exceptions (UK, AUS, etc) our allies and the world have left the US holding the global security bag. And only show up to collect aid checks and tell us what douches we are. The US could have done this alone and charged in like a drunk. But this time we held are hand and forced others to realize we are tired of it. There is no way we get French and Arab league support and get Russia and China to look away if we do this on our own. I think people were getting the blame cannons ready, but we didn't flinch, forcing them into action.

Good.
Becuase the rest of the world has been tired of it for quite sometime.

**Andrew1975**

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:But isn't this really the way it is. Really with few exceptions (UK, AUS, etc) our allies and the world have left the US holding the global security bag. And only show up to collect aid checks and tell us what douches we are. The US could have done this alone and charged in like a drunk. But this time we held are hand and forced others to realize we are tired of it. There is no way we get French and Arab league support and get Russia and China to look away if we do this on our own. I think people were getting the blame cannons ready, but we didn't flinch, forcing them into action.

Good.
Becuase the rest of the world has been tired of it for quite sometime.

Hey, I'm with you all the way. Unfortunately there are quite a few people here that think the US should be sticking their noses everywhere. Not me.

**Nurglitch**

Deleted

**Andrew1975**

What does that say about Americans that some of them regard restraint as weakness?

Because if you are strong you can do it on your own, so to do the opposite is weak.

I think if you are strong you can, but if you are smart you don't.

I mean if something goes wrong this time, we get to blame the French. Sounds like a win/win to me!

(waiting for Vietnam joke)

**metallifan**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because if you are strong you can do it on your own, so to do the opposite is weak.

I think if you are strong you can, but if you are smart you don't.

Even if you're strong, you -shouldn't- go it alone. That's why the world hates the US so much. Because they spend the last half-century, with few exceptions, kicking around the rest of the world and telling it how to live, and then calling out their allies when/if they wouldn't lend as much assistance as the joint chiefs wanted. Then, it's government and people would complain that the US was bearing most of the military burdens because the other NATO members didn't agree with their actions, or because they had less interest in a region than America did, and only sent the minimum amount as a show of goodwill.

It's akin to a bully picking fights with all the kids in the schoolyard, then complaining that no one helped him out after his victims ganged up and bung-fethed him. It's not fair to the citizens of a nation when they're led to believe that it's military forces are actually shouldering the burden out of necessity, and not just because the government controlling them has a skewered view as to how a superpower should help resolve world issues.

**Andrew1975**

Even if you're strong, you -shouldn't- go it alone. That's why the world hates the US so much. Because they spend the last half-century, with few exceptions, kicking around the rest of the world and telling it how to live, and then calling out their allies when/if they wouldn't lend as much assistance as the joint chiefs wanted. Then, it's government and people would complain that the US was bearing most of the military burdens because the other NATO members didn't agree with their actions, or because they had less interest in a region than America did, and only sent the minimum amount as a show of goodwill.

It's akin to a bully picking fights with all the kids in the schoolyard, then complaining that no one helped him out after his victims ganged up and bung-fethed him. It's not fair to the citizens of a nation when they're led to believe that it's military forces are actually shouldering the burden out of necessity, and not just because the government controlling them has a skewered view as to how a superpower should help resolve world issues.

Oh, I agree, but I also disagree. In reality I think most of our allies and enemies would have preferred we went in on our own or mostly on our own. Then the get to reap the rewards and point fingers at us weather we are successful or not and bear, little to no responsibility and or cost. I contend that is why they many times hem and haw so long before finally taking action, they are just waiting for the US to charge in like a mad bull, so that they don't really have to (I mean it might have something to do with these excursions being fiascoes). That being said the proper time to start these operations (if one really believes they are necessary, i don't) was over a week ago.

It's also easier for everyone in a logistical sense if the US does it alone. If there really are going to be arab league fighter jets. I don't think i would want to be anywhere around them. The chances for friendly fire are going to be astronomic and we already know it's a reality of war from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I blame Hollywood. The story of WWII in the US is that of the US riding in and saving the world pretty much all by itself. Most people here couldn't even tell you about Russian and contributions and if pressed would probably answer that they were with the Germans. Oh and forget our European allies, lets face it when was the last time you saw a Tommy in uniform!

**metallifan**

Andrew1975 wrote:Oh, I agree, but I also disagree. In reality I think most of our allies and enemies would have preferred we went in on our own or mostly on our own. Then the get to reap the rewards and point fingers at us weather we are successful or not and bear, little to no responsibility and or cost. I contend that is why they many times hem and haw so long before finally taking action, they are just waiting for the US to charge in like a mad bull, so that they don't really have to (I mean it might have something to do with these excursions being fiascoes).

Again, it comes down to the US having a Defense Budget larger than practically the rest of NATO combined, and a headcount that towers over it's allies. That's not to say that none of the NATO nations could make the first move once in a while, but the ability of any other state in NATO to maintain a prolongued conflict on it's own would be considerably lower than that of the American Forces. It's the price the US pays for being the big kid on the block. Whether or not they actually do make the first move is up to the JCoS and the CiC. It's their choice to jump in headfirst, with or without allied support. NATO isn't leaving the US out to dry, but rather, smaller militaries (which would be a large portion of the organization) don't have the same access to funding and resources that the US has. That's why, aside from the 'big 3' in Europe, NATO support for American military operations is rather limited - Because the US is, in a way, the Sledgehmmer. It might take a larger number of casualties than it's partner nations, but it's got the momentum behind it to pretty much set up a beachhead anywhere it wants. As for finger pointing, well there're two types of people that do that - protesters and politicians. And most of them probably wouldn't know the business end of a rifle if you labeled it for them.

That being said the proper time to start these operations (if one really believes they are necessary, i don't) was over a week ago.

Goddamn right, I read Ban Ki Moon's adress to the UN and was suprised and dumbfounded as to why he would think that telling Ghadafi that attacking Benghazi would result in "hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths" would stop him, as if Ghadafi cared when he shelled the piss out of innocents in Misrata. And now that we control his airspace and are authorized to take "any necessary measures to prevent harm to civilian elements", he calls a ceasefire and asks the rebels to parlay. Guy's a nutjob, hopefully the Libyan people can finish him off before May.

**Andrew1975**

Man, I hate to say it, but I can tell you are not an American. You argue and make sense while you do it and you are actually informative. Not what I've gotten used to here. I appreciate it.

**metallifan**

Don't worry, I've watched Glen Beck before. I know what you folks are exposed to down there, and you have my sympathy

**ChrisWWII**

Andrew1975 wrote:
As far a the carrier fleet. Was moving that a real expenditure is that really a posture! It can be said it was in the neighborhood. I mean it was already in the Mediterranean, it's just closer to Libya now.

Deploying a carrier strike group is considered a major move as far as military posturing goes, the fact that it isn't that expensive is merely an upside. And the Enterprise was not previously in the Mediteranean. It was in the Persian Gulf, and moved to the Med in preparation for possible military action against Gadaffi.

So yes, moving a carrier group is a significant move, especially when the US is moving a carrier from an area where it actually has forces on the ground, to an area that is arguably of less direct importance to the US.

**Andrew1975**

Deploying a carrier strike group is considered a major move as far as military posturing goes, the fact that it isn't that expensive is merely an upside. And the Enterprise was not previously in the Mediteranean. It was in the Persian Gulf, and moved to the Med in preparation for possible military action against Gadaffi.

So yes, moving a carrier group is a significant move, especially when the US is moving a carrier from an area where it actually has forces on the ground, to an area that is arguably of less direct importance to the US.

Correct, but originally I was talking to someone about cost, moving a carrier is not an additional expenditure. It doesn't cost anything because that's a standard operation cost and would be incurred on a daily bases, weather or not it moved at all.

**Frazzled**

Arab league condemns broad western bombing in Libya.

Sounds about right for Middle Eastern allies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3

**Andrew1975**

Frazzled wrote:Arab league condemns broad western bombing in Libya.

Sounds about right for Middle Eastern allies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3

Shocking! Did anyone really expect anything else? Arabs rarely appreciate US intervention in the middle east. Even when they ask for it they want very limited intervention. That's why I say if they really want these things done, they should do it themselves.

All you have to do is look at Gulf War I to see that. "We ticked off Saddam, save us. You saved us, thanks for bringing your toys, but you can't go into Iraq and depose an Arab leader!"

I didn't in the beginning, but now that he has changed his stance I think it not only shows weakness, but stupidity. Naivety may have been a better word.