The Obama Doctrine?

[fskimospy]

The right hasn't suddenly become anti-war.

They are just anti-Democrat-started-war. And that is due to the fact that Democrats have a tendency to get us involved in wars that have nothing to do with our overall national interests.

We have no national interest in Libya. And if we are suddenly interested in over throwing dictators then why aren't we going after them all over the world? And why was Obama giving grand speeches against what we are doing in Libya just two years ago?

Obama backed himself into a corner and can't figure out how to talk himself out of it.

Ridiculous.

They are anti democrat wars because they are against democrats, period. The only time they would pretend not to be is when a war is overwhelmingly popular, at which point they will bide their time. This is not complicated.

If you think Libya has nothing to do with our national interests, then Iraq had nothing to do with our national interests. The only possible explanation for the clusterfuck of Iraq that you have so frequently supported is some 'beacon of democracy'. If that's the case, then we're just shooting for two 'beacons'. I know you're adopting the GOP line here because that's what you've heard repeated a thousand times on all the ultra right wing websites you go to, but any rational evaluation of Libya leads to basically what Obama is doing.

Lets look at this from a rational, objective standpoint. You have Libyan rebels attacking the government, and the government looks like they are about to kick ass/slaughter the rebels and their associated civilians. Here are our options:

1.) Obama says nothing in support of anyone, does nothing, rebels are slaughtered. America and Obama now look like shit because we allowed Freedom Fighters For Democracy to die as we gazed on because it wasn't worth the trouble. America looks weak and unprincipled, extreme right wing of America flips out because Obama was so weak that he didn't help get rid of the Evil Lockerbie Bomber when he had the chance, missed opportunity, afraid to stand up for what's right. (REAGAN WOULD HAVE WON!)

2.) Obama supports rebels verbally (as he did) but then does nothing to support them materially. Rebels all die as before, now we look even worse. Right flips out because the Lockerbie Bomber made us look bad/Obama was weak, afraid to stand up for what's right.

3.) Obama bombs government troops in order to prevent Libyan rebel defeat, doesn't commit ground troops, relative stalemate ensues. Right flips out, says Obama is indecisive, doesn't understand war, is weak, has no overarching strategy. (ie: what is happening now)
4.) Obama commits fully, invades Libya, etc. Right flips out and says that we can't afford a new war, that he went back on his campaign promises (that they opposed), etc.

From the moment it became clear that Qaddafi wasn't going to get blown out immediately, this became a no-win situation for Obama and the US. No matter what happens here, we're going to end up looking like shit unless Qaddafi suddenly abdicates. Even then, we only end up looking good if the rebels don't descent into some sort of orgy of violence/purging/whatever.

We couldn't let everyone there get killed, and we couldn't invade. Bombing, while unsatisfying, was always the only real option. Anyone who spends 5 minutes actually thinking about it instead of trying to find a way to score political points should be able to see that quite easily.

 

[PeshakJang]

Lets look at this from a rational, objective standpoint. You have Libyan rebels attacking the government, and the government looks like they are about to kick ass/slaughter the rebels and their associated civilians. Here are our options:
...

We couldn't let everyone there get killed, and we couldn't invade. Bombing, while unsatisfying, was always the only real option. Anyone who spends 5 minutes actually thinking about it instead of trying to find a way to score political points should be able to see that quite easily.

Same situation in Ivory coast. Thousands have been killed. Tens of thousands (if not hundreds) are fleeing.

What have we done there and why?

 

[Brainonska511]

Same situation in Ivory coast. Thousands have been killed. Tens of thousands (if not hundreds) are fleeing.

What have we done there and why?

Why do we need to do anything? There are already 7500 UN Peacekeepers in the Ivory Coast and the French sent more troops and secured the airport.

 

[werepossum]

You're fooling yourself if you actually believe this. Obama will really have to fuck up to lose. The GOP has nothing.

I suspect you are correct. Obama has virtually all the truly wealthy and virtually all the big corporations behind him, plus the threat of wagging the big stick of Obamacare (which is mostly left up to the bureaucracy.) His fund raising is going to be legendary. People want him to succeed, both because he's our President and because he's our first black President. Most Presidents do win a second term. The economy is slowly getting better, and since most people's conception is that the President runs the economy he'll get the credit or blame for that. Most people like him personally. He will be without significant primary opposition. And he owns the mainstream press, who will be pulling out all the stops for him.

By contrast, the Republicans are going to have a bloody primary. They have no real knock-out candidate, which hurts them in November but also in the primaries as more people run and take shots at whomever gets the nod. And for policy, the Pubbies have nothing more than saying he's going to do all the liberal stuff which to date he hasn't done (except Obamacare) and saying that he ran up the deficit. Pubbies will be saying they want to balance the budget, Obama will be saying he wants to balance the budget. Since most people do not follow politics, they won't know who is better.

Frankly I think he'll be very hard to beat.

 

[Avalon]

There are some things that I don't agree with, particularly the green light to make it rain in Libya, and portions of the Health Care plan, but overall I think he's handled his job alright. I'm mostly unhappy with congress. They fight like children and take forever to get anything useful through. I really find it hard to believe that every discussion in the house/senate is, this is good for dems, bad for repubs or good for repubs, bad for dems. Are there not just sensibly good things that need to be passed that both sides can see as needed?

 

[werepossum]

Ridiculous.

They are anti democrat wars because they are against democrats, period. The only time they would pretend not to be is when a war is overwhelmingly popular, at which point they will bide their time. This is not complicated.

If you think Libya has nothing to do with our national interests, then Iraq had nothing to do with our national interests. The only possible explanation for the clusterfuck of Iraq that you have so frequently supported is some 'beacon of democracy'. If that's the case, then we're just shooting for two 'beacons'. I know you're adopting the GOP line here because that's what you've heard repeated a thousand times on all the ultra right wing websites you go to, but any rational evaluation of Libya leads to basically what Obama is doing.

Lets look at this from a rational, objective standpoint. You have Libyan rebels attacking the government, and the government looks like they are about to kick ass/slaughter the rebels and their associated civilians. Here are our options:

1.) Obama says nothing in support of anyone, does nothing, rebels are slaughtered. America and Obama now look like shit because we allowed Freedom Fighters For Democracy to die as we gazed on because it wasn't worth the trouble. America looks weak and unprincipled, extreme right wing of America flips out because Obama was so weak that he didn't help get rid of the Evil Lockerbie Bomber when he had the chance, missed opportunity, afraid to stand up for what's right. (REAGAN WOULD HAVE WON!)

2.) Obama supports rebels verbally (as he did) but then does nothing to support them materially. Rebels all die as before, now we look even worse. Right flips out because the Lockerbie Bomber made us look bad/Obama was weak, afraid to stand up for what's right.

3.) Obama bombs government troops in order to prevent Libyan rebel defeat, doesn't commit ground troops, relative stalemate ensues. Right flips out, says Obama is indecisive, doesn't understand war, is weak, has no overarching strategy. (ie: what is happening now)
4.) Obama commits fully, invades Libya, etc. Right flips out and says that we can't afford a new war, that he went back on his campaign promises (that they opposed), etc.

From the moment it became clear that Qaddafi wasn't going to get blown out immediately, this became a no-win situation for Obama and the US. No matter what happens here, we're going to end up looking like shit unless Qaddafi suddenly abdicates. Even then, we only end up looking good if the rebels don't descent into some sort of orgy of violence/purging/whatever.

We couldn't let everyone there get killed, and we couldn't invade. Bombing, while unsatisfying, was always the only real option. Anyone who spends 5 minutes actually thinking about it instead of trying to find a way to score political points should be able to see that quite easily.

Iraq was different in that we were already technically at war with Iraq, from 1991. Had we simply pulled out, Saddam Hussein would have proclaimed a great victory and demonstrated that American is in fact a paper tiger in some respects, that leaders can oppose America, even fight a war with America, and avoid taking personal damage until America just gives up and goes away. There's an argument to be made there that deposing Saddam was in our national interests, although even now it's not a completely compelling one. Deposing the Taliban would have sent the same message, arguably more clearly.

Libya now is a different bird. On the surface it plays into the old saw that liberals are all in favor of deploying our military just as long as no American national interests are served. I'm still supporting it because I don't think Obama would have gone against everything he (and Biden) said a President MUST do without some compelling national interest at stake, even if it's only supporting our allies, but I'll admit Obama doesn't make it easy.

And your analysis doesn't hold water; there are worse problems going on all over Africa, including the Sudan (which also has oil.) Gotta be some logical reason here why Obama went all froggy on Libya.

 

[fskimospy]

Same situation in Ivory coast. Thousands have been killed. Tens of thousands (if not hundreds) are fleeing.

What have we done there and why?

Why would we intervene in Ivory Coast? Which aspects of the situation there make it politically untenable for US leadership to ignore it either domestically or internationally?

 

[fskimospy]

Iraq was different in that we were already technically at war with Iraq, from 1991. Had we simply pulled out, Saddam Hussein would have proclaimed a great victory and demonstrated that American is in fact a paper tiger in some respects, that leaders can oppose America, even fight a war with America, and avoid taking personal damage until America just gives up and goes away. There's an argument to be made there that deposing Saddam was in our national interests, although even now it's not a completely compelling one. Deposing the Taliban would have sent the same message, arguably more clearly.

Libya now is a different bird. On the surface it plays into the old saw that liberals are all in favor of deploying our military just as long as no American national interests are served. I'm still supporting it because I don't think Obama would have gone against everything he (and Biden) said a President MUST do without some compelling national interest at stake, even if it's only supporting our allies, but I'll admit Obama doesn't make it easy.

And your analysis doesn't hold water; there are worse problems going on all over Africa, including the Sudan (which also has oil.) Gotta be some logical reason here why Obama went all froggy on Libya.

My analysis never even mentioned oil, it is about internal US politics.

 

[werepossum]

My analysis never even mentioned oil, it is about internal US politics.

Your analysis was total bullshit. Obama faces the same basic decision in roughly a dozen nations, so setting up his possible courses of action is merely justification after the fact. For Libya to make sense, we must understand why Libya and not Yemen, Syria, Ivory Coast, Bahrain, Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Somalia, CAR . . . There has to be a reason. I'm assuming there is a good and valid reason, you're merely using pseudologic to pretend we can see it.

I mentioned oil in Sudan because that is one particular reason often cited, as most of the nations burning at a given time are not oil producers and therefore largely incapable of affecting us even to the slight degree of Libya. There are humans massacring their fellow humans all over the globe at any given time, and usually the American President doesn't get the blame.

 

[fskimospy]

Your analysis was total bullshit. Obama faces the same basic decision in roughly a dozen nations, so setting up his possible courses of action is merely justification after the fact. For Libya to make sense, we must understand why Libya and not Yemen, Syria, Ivory Coast, Bahrain, Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Somalia, CAR . . . There has to be a reason. I'm assuming there is a good and valid reason, you're merely using pseudologic to pretend we can see it.

I mentioned oil in Sudan because that is one particular reason often cited, as most of the nations burning at a given time are not oil producers and therefore largely incapable of affecting us even to the slight degree of Libya. There are humans massacring their fellow humans all over the globe at any given time, and usually the American President doesn't get the blame.

Sure it was, keep telling yourself that. You're right that the US president usually isn't blamed for massacres across the globe. I already explained to you why this situation is different. You can keep believing that we're bombing them for some sneaky reason that Obama knows which we just can't figure out, or you can accept the reality that politicians act in their own best interests.

 

[werepossum]

Sure it was, keep telling yourself that. You're right that the US president usually isn't blamed for massacres across the globe. I already explained to you why this situation is different. You can keep believing that we're bombing them for some sneaky reason that Obama knows which we just can't figure out, or you can accept the reality that politicians act in their own best interests.

You laid out Obama's choices: Do nothing, talk about it, commit air power, commit ground troops. You made exactly zero points about why Libya is somehow different, unless you somehow count "bu-bu-but Iraq" and vague accusations of political bias in anyone who dares doubt the Messiah. These four choices (plus diplomacy and sanctions, also possibilities in Libya) are equally possible in every situation across the globe where one group of people is fighting another. Ivory Coast is a particularly attractive example, being until the past decade an example of an African nation that was both democratic and (compared to its neighbors) becoming prosperous. It even has products - especially cocoa and coffee - which the United States actually purchases in quantity. And it has way more people being killed than does Libya - and unlike Libya, has literally a few million people displaced by the war.

If you want to support Obama simply because he's Obama, fine. I'm basically supporting him because he's my President and I am assuming that he has good and valid reasons for this adventure and honestly feels that this is the best course, same as I did with Bush. Just don't take his decision and attempt to work backwards to justify it.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

He is Jimmy Carter part 2.

Unless the Republicans really screw up Obama will lose next year and a few years after that he will be a foot note in history. Other than Obama care he hasn't done anything or accomplished anything worth remembering.

And chances are that Obama doesn't survive either. It will either get killed in the courts or the next President will repeal or at least gut most of the bill.

"Obamacare" is something I would rather forget.

 

[fskimospy]

You laid out Obama's choices: Do nothing, talk about it, commit air power, commit ground troops. You made exactly zero points about why Libya is somehow different, unless you somehow count "bu-bu-but Iraq" and vague accusations of political bias in anyone who dares doubt the Messiah. These four choices (plus diplomacy and sanctions, also possibilities in Libya) are equally possible in every situation across the globe where one group of people is fighting another. Ivory Coast is a particularly attractive example, being until the past decade an example of an African nation that was both democratic and (compared to its neighbors) becoming prosperous. It even has products - especially cocoa and coffee - which the United States actually purchases in quantity. And it has way more people being killed than does Libya - and unlike Libya, has literally a few million people displaced by the war.

If you want to support Obama simply because he's Obama, fine. I'm basically supporting him because he's my President and I am assuming that he has good and valid reasons for this adventure and honestly feels that this is the best course, same as I did with Bush. Just don't take his decision and attempt to work backwards to justify it.

I'm not even sure what planet you're writing that from, and this has nothing to do with supporting Obama's action in Libya. (I honestly couldn't care less about it, there's no winning strategy.) You're projecting on me, and I wish you would stop.

I specifically wrote how Libya is different, it's different because he is our political and ideological enemy. This means that Obama's opposition in the US can use this issue as a club on him if he does nothing, hence he was compelled for domestic reasons to act. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for America, but it's a good idea for Obama. As for political bias in his opponents, of course they have political bias. They're partisan politicians, that's basically their whole job. (that goes for everyone on the hill)

We don't intervene in places like Ivory Coast because our politicians have a lot to lose politically from it and almost nothing to gain. It's why we claim we need to intervene to save a few thousand lives in one place and ignore a few million lives in another. Once you realize that this is about Obama and not about the people of Libya, it will all make sense to you.

Oh, and diplomacy/sanctions were not real options in this case. Sanctions take too long to be effective in a war that would have been over in weeks, and it's extremely hard to target sanctions in a civil war. Diplomacy is ongoing, but was not realistically going to end. (exactly what sets of conditions do you think a dictator would allow people intent on overthrowing/killing him continue to hang around in his country, unless he was militarily forced to?)

 

[JTsyo]

Consensus. Srsly, he's proven over and over again that he will give up as many of his positions as needed to satisfy the demands of the Republicans. So much so, that the Republicans have been forced to oppose Ideas they promoted in the first place.

heh like the Daily Show excerpt they had on 3 Republicans calling for a no-fly zone and then saying it wasn't good enough after Obama acted.