Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

[TheOracle]

Well, it's no secret that I find Mossad agents sexy.

 

[Steinhauer]

Well, it's no secret that I find Mossad agents sexy.

They can get away with a LOT

Ah well ... maybe I need to steer back to the topic. Obama relinquished US authority over to NATO and the Arab League.

I got this email a couple of hours ago:

Good morning,
I'm writing today with an update on the situation in Libya, including the actions we've taken with allies and partners to protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar Qaddafi. For further details, please take a moment to watch this morning's Weekly Address:

Sending our brave men and women in uniform into harm's way is not a decision I make lightly. But when someone like Qaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region, it is in our national interest to act. In fact, it’s our responsibility.
Our mission in Libya is clear and focused -- and we are succeeding.
Along with our allies and partners, we are enforcing the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. Working with other countries, we have put in place a no-fly zone and other measures that will help prevent further violence and brutality. Qaddafi's air defenses have been taken out, and his forces are no longer advancing across Libya.
As a consequence of our quick action, the lives of countless innocent civilians have been saved, and a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided.
The role of American forces in this mission is limited. After providing unique capabilities at the beginning, we are now handing over control of the no-fly zone to our NATO allies and partners, including Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The United States has also joined with the international community to deliver urgent humanitarian assistance. We're offering support to the Libyan opposition and have frozen tens of billions of dollars of Qaddafi's assets.
Our message to Qaddafi is clear: attacks against innocent civilians must end, his forces must be pulled back, humanitarian aid must reach Libyans in need, and those responsible for the violence in Libya must be held accountable.
The progress we've made over the past seven days demonstrates how the international community should work, with many nations, not just the United States, bearing the responsibility and cost of upholding international law.
Every American can be proud of the service of our men and women in uniform who have once again stood up for our interests and ideals. And as we move forward, I will continue to keep each of you fully informed on our progress.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
President of the United States
P.S. On Monday evening at 7:30 p.m. EDT, I will deliver an address at the National Defense University in Washington, DC on the situation in Libya. You can watch the speech live at WhiteHouse.gov/live.

 

[TheOracle]

What's the end goal? If Qaddafi stops terrorizing innocent citizens (not rebels - they aren't innocent), will we retreat?

If the goal is to remove Qaddafi, what's our goal regarding the aftermath?

There's just no...PLAN.

 

[Jiro]

They can get away with a LOT

Ah well ... maybe I need to steer back to the topic. Obama relinquished US authority over to NATO and the Arab League.

I got this email a couple of hours ago:

see? President Obama has done nothing unconstitutional nor illegal. Congressional authorization for the use of military is not needed. All of this is within War Power Act.

 

[Jiro]

What's the end goal? If Qaddafi stops terrorizing innocent citizens (not rebels - they aren't innocent), will we retreat?

that's up to UN.

If the goal is to remove Qaddafi, what's our goal regarding the aftermath?

There's just no...PLAN.

no. that's not our goal.

again - ... an excerpt from Obama's letter from Steinhauer's post...

Along with our allies and partners, we are enforcing the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. Working with other countries, we have put in place a no-fly zone and other measures that will help prevent further violence and brutality. Qaddafi's air defenses have been taken out, and his forces are no longer advancing across Libya.

As a consequence of our quick action, the lives of countless innocent civilians have been saved, and a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided.
The role of American forces in this mission is limited. After providing unique capabilities at the beginning, we are now handing over control of the no-fly zone to our NATO allies and partners, including Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

The United States has also joined with the international community to deliver urgent humanitarian assistance. We're offering support to the Libyan opposition and have frozen tens of billions of dollars of Qaddafi's assets.

Our message to Qaddafi is clear: attacks against innocent civilians must end, his forces must be pulled back, humanitarian aid must reach Libyans in need, and those responsible for the violence in Libya must be held accountable......

 

[TheOracle]

I'm not always opposed to the use of force in other country's affairs if it serves our purpose.

I'm just uneasy at "plan as you go without a desired end goal".

Also, didn't we enforce a no-fly zone in Iraq for yeeeeaaaaaaaaaars? Just sayin'. I remember touring a base with my high school boyfriend and he was like, "We bomb Iraqis with these!" while pointing to an F-16. This was before 9/11 and before we underwent "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Again, I can see how people could be skittish.

 

[TheOracle]

Well then, if our desire is to stop him from terrorizing citizens, will we just go home if he agrees? And let him stay in power?

If that's the case, it destroys Obama's "democracy" argument he gave a week ago.

*shrug* I hope Qadaffi obliges just so I can see the Department of Defense engage in some hand-wringing.

 

[Jiro]

I'm just uneasy at "plan as you go without a desired end goal".

no such thing.

There's only good and bad decision. There will be unforeseeable things always happen at any moment despite of detailed planning. Snap Judgement will be needed to be made every time.

 

[TheOracle]

Hm...I think we've made similar calls for him to step down.

No transition talks until Gaddafi steps down, Italy says - Monsters and Critics

So we may claim that our goal is to stop the murder of civilians and enforce a no-fly zone, but we are also saying that he needs to step down. It seems to be that this enforcement of a no-fly zone and supporting the rebels is coercion.

We *say* we're not engaged in a regime change, yet we *act* as though we are. We *make calls* for Qadaffi to step down. We use military force to destroy his military capabilities.

NATO can't agree on an end result....so....anyway.

 

[TheOracle]

Yes, Jiro, why don't you go run for President (if you qualified) and say that your plan is to get us through every future war is by thinking quickly!

How do you succeed without a goal?

 

[Miss-Delectable]

Navy recruiter told me that after my school I could choose where I served....he said I could even choose Australia and the "every girl there looks likeOlivia Newton John and they are crazy for sailors"

They must be surprised to see that it is not so. Aussies might have been wild about American sailors and soldiers during WW2 when they were stationed here. But now, they'd go 'meh, another American'.....

 

[Jiro]

Hm...I think we've made similar calls for him to step down.

No transition talks until Gaddafi steps down, Italy says - Monsters and Critics

So we may claim that our goal is to stop the murder of civilians and enforce a no-fly zone, but we are also saying that he needs to step down. It seems to be that this enforcement of a no-fly zone and supporting the rebels is coercion.

We *say* we're not engaged in a regime change, yet we *act* as though we are. We *make calls* for Qadaffi to step down. We use military force to destroy his military capabilities.

NATO can't agree on an end result....so....anyway.

I don't know where you're getting all this stuff

1. we did not attack to destroy his military capability
2. we attacked only military vehicles that were attacking Libyan civilians and also a facility that was coordinating the attack on Libyan civilians
3. there is no end result to this since this is not a war. we are simply enforcing the no-fly zone and providing armed security for humanitarian aids and Libyan civilians until situation is under control.
4. it is common for country leaders to speak out and express their opinions. It is President Obama's opinion that Gaddafi should step down but our official military goal is NOT removing Gaddafi.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, Jiro, why don't you go run for President (if you qualified) and say that your plan is to get us through every future war is by thinking quickly!

I was not born in America but I'm American citizen.

Thinking quickly? no. I would act with prudence and make judgment with best of my ability based on information given to me. Mistakes will be made. Bad decisions will be made. Obama's doing fine with Libya situation.

How do you succeed without a goal?

I think the question you're looking for is.... what is our plan?

again for dozens of times... our goal is simple and limited - to enforce UN Security Council's resolution. simple as that.

 

[TheOracle]

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay, Jiro.

So what happens if he steps down? Do you want the rebels in charge? Who supports the rebels? Who are they? You think democracy lovin' peace activists are going to be the next government?

So far, it is much easier to explain why America joined the conflict — as an emergency action to protect civilians — than to envision how it will end. The president has yet to clarify his long-term aims and how he plans to achieve them. Nor has he said what happens if Moammar Kadafi stays in power, as the Libyan leader has vowed, despite a no-fly zone and airstrikes against his military.

Photos: Libyan uprising retakes Ajdabiya

Obama will discuss his plans in Libya during a speech to the nation Monday night. In the meantime, in his weekly radio address Saturday, he said that Kadafi's attacks against civilians "must stop" and that his forces "must pull back." But he didn't outline circumstances under which the intervention would end except to say that "the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realized."

Many analysts say that, short of targeting Kadafi in a military strike, which the Obama administration says it will not do, the U.S. and its allies may face a long war of attrition.

Libya, Obama: Obama faces a challenge in defining his aims in Libya - latimes.com

These points have been argued for the last week in publications all over the U.S. I find them perfectly valid.

 

[Jiro]

Well then, if our desire is to stop him from terrorizing citizens, will we just go home if he agrees? And let him stay in power?

"we"? our troops are not on Libyan soil.

If that's the case, it destroys Obama's "democracy" argument he gave a week ago.

are you referring to this speech? Weekly Address: President Obama Says the Mission in Libya is Succeeding | The White House

or this? Remarks by the President on Libya | The White House

*shrug* I hope Qadaffi obliges just so I can see the Department of Defense engage in some hand-wringing.

ask Mossad. They might be able to get the job done quicker.

 

[Jiro]

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookay, Jiro.

So what happens if he steps down? Do you want the rebels in charge? Who supports the rebels? Who are they? You think democracy lovin' peace activists are going to be the next government?

Libya, Obama: Obama faces a challenge in defining his aims in Libya - latimes.com

These points have been argued for the last week in publications all over the U.S. I find them perfectly valid.

you're asking a wrong person, TheOracle.

Ask Obama, not me

 

[TheOracle]

I was not born in America but I'm American citizen.

Yes, and disqualified from being a U.S. President.

I think the question you're looking for is.... what is our plan?

again for dozens of times... our goal is simple and limited - to enforce UN Security Council's resolution. simple as that.

Which could be taken as "remove Qadaffi".

 

[Jiro]

Yes, and disqualified from being a U.S. President.

yup. and I have no interest in being one anyway.

Which could be taken as "remove Qadaffi".

not really. You are continuing to try to pin this as "America's at war with Libya".

it's very simple. We are enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973. not that hard to understand. There are no American troops on Libyan soil.

Show me any source that there is an official directive that Gaddafi must step down.

 

[TheOracle]

"we"? our troops are not on Libya soil.


are you referring to this speech? Weekly Address: President Obama Says the Mission in Libya is Succeeding | The White House

or this? Remarks by the President on Libya | The White House.

HUFFPOST HILL - Obama: We're Promoting Democracy In Libya

Mixed signals? From Iran to Libya, will Obama ride this democracy train of protests? - CSMonitor.com

Independent Women's Forum - I Hope Colonel Gaddafi Is As Confused As I Am...

Gaddafi must go: Obama : World News Australia on SBS

US policy is that Colonel Gaddafi has to leave power, Mr Obama said, but he stressed the United States would stick to a United Nations mandate during its military action in Libya.

White House aims to 'install' democracy in Libya | Hayley Peterson | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and "installing a democratic system," actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting, according to a conversation between President Obama and Turkey's prime minister.

Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke late Monday and "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people's will," according to a White House report on the phone call.

The rhetoric matches Obama's reiteration on Monday that it is still U.S. policy that "Gadhafi needs to go."

But it is a marked contrast to the U.S.-led military mission as defined by the U.N. resolution.

"There's not a U.N. Security Council resolution mandating regime change in Libya that we're acting to enforce," national security aide Ben Rhodes said Monday. "We're acting to enforce a resolution that has the immediate goal of protecting civilians."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: White House aims to 'install' democracy in Libya | Hayley Peterson | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

So...this is our policy...just not our goal right now. Hmm. Seems like our current goal supports our policy!


(Like it did in Iraq...didn't work.)

 

[TheOracle]

not really. You are continuing to try to pin this as "America's at war with Libya".

it's very simple. We are enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973. not that hard to understand. There are no American troops on Libyan soil.

Show me any source that there is an official directive that Gaddafi must step down.

I am not saying we are at war with Libya. I am saying that it seems as though our goal is to see Qadaffi ousted...yet our "official directive" is to enforce the UN resolution.

If you read the resolution, you'll see that it's rather ambiguous. If removing Qafaffi ends up being the only way to ensure the safety of civilians, then can't we claim it's our new goal?

If so, what do we do about the aftermath? Who takes charge? It's important to think of these things now. Once you topple Qadaffi, you can't go back!