(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates: "I don't understand this comment, can you explain it?"
To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.
happyroach: "I think it's a sign of the decline of the West that people can't comprehend fighting against violent tyranny.
When America does eventually fall into a neo-feudal dictatorship, it will be heralded by a shrug and a cynical comment on metafilter."
"Let's give credit where credit is due. It was the French and the British who led on this fight and probably even led on the strike that led to Gaddafi's capture or to his death."
"One anonymous Obama adviser labeled the Libya strategy 'leading from behind' in an interview with the New Yorker earlier this year, a slogan that has turned into a bludgeon for Republican critics to use to assail Obama’s leadership or lack thereof. But the scenes of celebration in Tripoli make it difficult — if not impossible, as supportive statements by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham demonstrated Monday — to argue with Obama’s methods. And at a moment of fiscal obsession, Qadhafi was deposed on the cheap: the most recent figures, from earlier this summer, showed just $1.1 billion in American outlays on the mission, a virtual rounding error at the Pentagon and the equivalent of a few days of involvement in Afghanistan. U.S. warplanes flew just 16 percent of the aerial sorties over the country, according to figures compiled by the Atlantic Council of the United States."
"And this week, when asked by a New Hampshire resident whether President Obama should be impeached over Libya, Huntsman refused to say, telling the voter that he’d 'let Congress make that decision.'"
“For Barack Obama and his national security team, the simultaneous fall of Sirte and the death of Muammar al-Qaddafi provide an important punctuation mark in their successful initiative to support Libyan rebels and bring an end to an odious dictatorship.
The political benefits that accrue to the president at home will be modest. Domestic issues command the attention of American voters. What's more, the president's Republican opponents don't want to talk foreign-policy very much. And with good reason. The president's record is for the most part too good to take issue with.
The president came into office promising to get the United States out of a disliked war in Iraq and has kept the promise. He came in promising to shift the focus to Afghanistan and finishing the business of decapitating al Qaeda. He did both. Bin Laden is dead. And we are committed to coming home from Afghanistan, too. While the administration's response to the first stirrings of rebellion in the Middle East -- in Iran -- was muddled and late, the overall approach has been constructive and the Libya chapter will stand out as a gamble that worked. Restoring relations with our European allies, engineering the ‘pivot’ in priorities to Asia cited by Secretary of State Clinton, and the recognition of the growing importance of dealing with emerging powers are all additional positive developments that are a credit to the president and his team.
But more important than any political benefits that accrue to the president as a result of this successful outcome to the Libya effort is that it brings into focus an important shift in U.S. national security strategy, a doctrine that stands alongside Clinton's ‘pivot’ as one of the signature contributions of Obama and his security policymakers. Indeed, although I am reluctant to throw around the term ‘doctrine’ because it has become devalued through overuse, I believe it puts into focus what can and should be identified as the Obama Doctrine.
… The Obama Doctrine, while also grounded in the idea that we must exhaust every other means of advancing our national interest, is responding to the lessons of a different unpopular war, in this case, Iraq. It is a reaction against the use of ‘overwhelming force’ to achieve rather narrow (not to mention dubious) goals. It is an antidote to ‘shock and awe,’ ‘three trillion dollar wars’ and unilateral conventional invasions if they can possibly be avoided.
Whereas the Bush administration engaged in an open checkbook approach to a global ‘war on terror’ (a perversion of the Powell doctrine that was especially uncomfortable for Powell himself to watch unfold), Obama's approach -- in fighting terror, getting Bin Laden, assisting with the ouster of Qaddafi, and elsewhere -- has been not only to cast aside the term ‘war on terror’ but also the strategies and tactics of massive ground war.”*
Muammar Gaddafi died peacefully this morning surrounded by friends and family. He is survived by sons Saif al-Islam, Moatassem, Saif al-Arab, Khamis. A memorial website is being set up where people will be able to share their memories of Muammar.
The U.S./NATO intervention in Libya was not a “war for oil.” Access to oil wasn’t even the main issue during the 1970s or 1980s, years of U.S. opposition to Libya’s role in supporting national liberation movements during the Cold War, or through the 1990s when the U.S. isolated Libya for its involvement with terrorism. Libya’s sweet light crude was always widely available on the world’s oil market.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.
"We came, we saw, he died," she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews.
« Older Speak like Yoda, did you? May have we. [HuffPo]... | The 147 companies that run the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt