Libya Thread Part Deux

[knapplc]

Libya is a power vacuum because of us.

 

No. The Arab Spring wasn't started by the U.S. We established a no-fly zone and enforced it, but the civil war was not fought by America, nor did we win it. Blaming America for Libya's civil war ignores the facts.

 

We got involved and had no real post victory plan.

 

That's because we didn't win. We have no military presence, we are not controlling that country, and we have no interest in doing so. Had we been the conquering army things would be different. America's involvement in the Libyan revolution is entirely different than our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not remotely close.

 

 

 

As to the Senator McCain, have you ever worked for a senator, ever been a senator, or looked at a senators schedule? What would McCain gain from missing the meeting?

 

Do you really need to be told this? It's quite obvious. He gets to claim that he's never been given the information he's demanding, continuing to hold that over the head of the Administration. Sadly for McCain, people aren't that stupid, and he's looking worse and worse by the day.

[carlfense]

Sadly for McCain, people aren't that stupid, and he's looking worse and worse by the day.

That does sadden me. For some reason I distinctly remember this article from Slate in 2010.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2010/07/the_saddest_senator.html

 

The decline continues.

[carlfense]

The Economist provides a reality check:

The Obama administration could not rationally have believed it would have derived any benefit from inaccurately claiming the attack on the Benghazi consulate grew out of a demonstration; why on earth would they engage in a cover-up of something that makes no difference?

 

Obviously there's a huge temptation to turn any incident that could reflect badly on the opposition's government, such as the killing of an ambassador in a terrorist attack, into some kind of scandal. But this attempt is just absurd. The strategy here has been to shout "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!" until the public begins to think there's something fishy going on with Benghazi, and then move on to targeting administration figures because...Benghazi! If this actually works, we are all still in kindergarten.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/susan-rice

[walksalone]

The Obama administration could not rationally have believed it would have derived any benefit from inaccurately claiming the attack on the Benghazi consulate grew out of a demonstration; why on earth would they engage in a cover-up of something that makes no difference?

 

Obviously there's a huge temptation to turn any incident that could reflect badly on the opposition's government, such as the killing of an ambassador in a terrorist attack, into some kind of scandal. But this attempt is just absurd. The strategy here has been to shout "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!" until the public begins to think there's something fishy going on with Benghazi, and then move on to targeting administration figures because...Benghazi! If this actually works, we are all still in kindergarten.

 

If there was a cover up, whatever, it's not the first time its happened, and won't be the last...

 

What bothers me is that nobody seems to know what happened. If so, there's an egregious lack of command and control within our intel community.

[carlfense]

The cranky old Senator has whipped himself into a lather over Susan Rice's televised statements about the attack on the Benghazi consulate, accusing her of misleading the public because she did not immediately cite al Qaeda or a planned terrorist attack. She made those statements on September 16. And yet onSeptember 22, McCain himself voted for a resolution that described the affair thus:

 

"the violence in Benghazi coincided with an attack on the United States Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, which was also swarmed by an angry mob of protesters on September 11, 2012."

 

My italics. So McCain is clearly implying as late as September 22 that he believed the attack was spawned by the video. No mention of terrorists or al Qaeda, even after McCain had had a chance to talk this through with intelligence sources. So why is McCain haranguing someone for saying what he said days later?

http://andrewsulliva...ptember-22.html

[carlfense]

Looks like there might be a real Libya scandal. (Just not the one pushed so desperately by some.)

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

 

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

 

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

http://www.nytimes.c...ds.html?hp&_r=0

 

Edit: *there.

[Undone]

What's your opinion on the shipment of arms, carl?

[carlfense]

What's your opinion on the shipment of arms, carl?

Generally or in this specific instance?

[Undone]

Since it's fun to discuss these topics, both.

[carlfense]

Since it's fun to discuss these topics, both.

Haha.

 

In general, if we can arm local fighters and have them fight their own wars (furthering their own interests and our interests) I much prefer that to risking the lives of our own troops on foreign soil. The downside is that there is often a very fine line between our friends and our enemies in this region. We run the risk of giving insurgents weapons that will eventually be turned against our own people.

 

In this case, we managed to topple Gaddafi with few American lives lost through covert arming of rebels and air support. Is that worth weapons getting into the hands of people who will try to kill Americans? I'm not sure. I do know that Americans would have died if we would have put boots on the ground and driven Gaddafi out ourselves . . . and the Libyan people would probably hate us for invading their country. I think the myth of our victorious army rolling into countries and being welcomed with open arms was pretty well busted in Iraq.

 

In short, I think the decision has to be made on a case by case basis. How important to our interests is the ultimate goal? (Here, removing Gaddafi.) What are the chances that the weapons will fall into the hands of people who will turn them against Americans? (Here, it looks like we don't really know.) What are the alternatives to arming locals? (Air support only, committing ground forces, doing nothing, etc.)

 

Was it worth it in this case? I don't know yet. We should know more over the next decade.

[Undone]

How important to our interests is the ultimate goal?

 

This is my litmus test as well. And it seems harder and harder to tell what our government knows and/or what their motivations are for involvement.

 

Because in this case, isn't the rebel faction actually more likely to be in league with Islamist extremists that tend to team up strongly with the larger anti-American powers in the region?

[carlfense]

Because in this case, isn't the rebel faction actually more likely to be in league with Islamist extremists that tend to team up strongly with the larger anti-American powers in the region?

More likely than Gaddafi? I don't really know. Despite Benghazi, I think that the current situation in Libya is more pro-American than it was under Gaddafi.

 

Ultimately I don't see the US being particularly well liked in the Middle East no matter what happens. Perceived religious differences, extremists happy to place blame on foreign actors, etc. They'll happily accept our money for oil . . . but I suspect that's about it.

[Undone]

I really don't know either. Which is why I'd really love to know why we involve ourselves at all.

 

Connections to oil? If so, it makes sense. I just honestly don't have knowledge on the subject.

[navysker]

OK, My two cents worth...... Does anyone ever think think that the Middle East may be slightly stableized? And there are no real terrorist threats there except for civil wars that don't worry us? And that maybe the terrorists are moving into destabilized countries like Africa? Just a thought and I will not go into details. Rip my post apart. I do not care. America has an interest in the Global War on Terror my friends and routing it out of Africa.

[carlfense]

Apparently within the conservative echo chamber they're still @#%$ing this chicken.

 

Strange stuff. I've still yet to hear what this massive cover up is covering up.