Libyan People Win, Qaddafi & Bachmann Lose
It is gratifying that another Middle Eastern henchman appears about to get his just desserts, and that despite extensive U.S. involvement in the NATO mission not a single American life has been lost in the civil war. (How about them apples, Michele Bachmann? Time to retract your statement that President Obama “is not on our side” because the U.S. intervened? Of course you won’t.)
But let’s face it, defeating Qaddafi’s army will have been the easy part. The hard part will be getting the ragtag alliance of rebels to stash their differences and put Libya on track to becoming a democracy.
The end of the civil war arrived with a rush compared to the drawn-out and largely inconclusive city-by-city battles that had characterized the first six months of fighting as rebels swept into the capital city of Tripoli with a coordination sorely lacking early in the war that can be attributed to stepped-up American aerial surveillance. They initially were met with virtually no resistance, but ferocious fighting has been reported around the compound where Qaddafi may be hiding.
Since NATO entered the war in March, the U.S. and its allies have flown 7,500 sorties, attacking thousands of targets from individual weapons rocket launchers to major military headquarters and essentially destroyed the eyes and ears of Qaddafi’s command structure.
Let it not be forgotten that the U.S. and other Western nations — as well as British Petroleum and other energy companies — supported Qaddafi and like Mubarak in Egypt he survived as long as he did because of that unholy alliance. The trick now for the U.S. will be to not be drawn into the post-Qaddafi turmoil while materially supporting the rebels and insisting that any transitional government be all-inclusive.
23 Responses to “Libyan People Win, Qaddafi & Bachmann Lose”
Whether Q will get his just deserts or too many calories, there is potential for lots of problems stretching from Tunisia to Egypt.
I would guess the key to future Libyan stability will be sharing of the oil revenues amongst all the people. If they can come up with an across-the-board, all-are-equal mentality for that, then the rest will work out.
Profit before politics, just like here.
Barky:
I’ve read one commentator who is calling Libya the un-Iraq. The key to whether that is true is the equitable distribution of oil revenues.
I would add to the (sore) losers, Senators McCain and Graham.
[...] Libyan People Win, Qaddafi & Bachmann Lose (themoderatevoice.com) Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_bg", "ffffff"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_text", "444444"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_link", "cd4517"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_border", "2F2019"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_url", "AD92C3"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "politics"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "libya"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "obama"); GA_googleFillSlot("LD_ROS_300-WEB"); LD_GetBids(); Share this:TwitterFacebookDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Hoo hoo, the little neocon scum must be so confused!
Dorian, why are they losers?
Actually Shaun as I recall both you and I had mixed feelings about this going in. Qadafi (or however he’s spelling it today) is a bad guy and I am glad to see him gone. Balanced against that were the concerns of the US entering a war against someone that poses no direct threat to the US, no defined exit strategy or goals, a war that cost the US in dollars during a time of financial crisis, the risk of US casualties (which thankfully has not occurred) and a questionable regime taking the place of Qadafi.
Recall that this action was taken on humanitarian grounds but has turned into quite a bit more. I don’t know what exactly Bachmann said and really don’t care.
From a military standpoint it is interesting that this was accomplished purely with air support, similar to Kosovo. There’s always a risk this strategy will fail without ground troops, but it worked again.
dduck.
You’ll probably disagree, but that’s fine.
Why are they (sore) losers?
As I commented on Joe’s post:
“But in this political season just watch what Clemons points to be turned into a negative by partisans.”
For example Senators McCain and Graham bitter, pure partisan, knee-jerk reactions:
“Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Gadhafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”
Was the latter part really necessary?
Can’t these guys ever give credit where credit is due.
Shame!
Thanks for your explanation.
You’re welcome, dduck, and sorry for in a way prejudging your reaction
Hey look, we showed the arab\muslim world that we can assist a country without taking it over .
Maybe we aren’t such bad guys after all??
The future is a giant question mark, but better to be free with options than oppressed with nothing.
In the spirit of the OP’s prediliction for commanding posters to discuss, let me say, “Compare and contrast”
“The notion that an unelected body who declares itself the sole legitimate representation for an entire nation could be remotely legitimate is laughable at best.
The fact is, the Libyan people never voted for these rebels and many do not support them. If the people of Libya were actually behind these self-declared rulers, how could
they assemble such a massive pro-Gaddafi demonstration in the Libyan capital of Tripoli?
To put it in perspective, what if during a period of intense civil unrest in the United States a group of a few elites declared themselves the sole representatives of our entire nation?”
Now, read this……….The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges. The Iraqi cities of Al-Kut and Nasiriyah launched attacks on each other immediately following the fall of Baghdad to establish dominance in the new country,The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges. The Iraqi cities of Al-Kut and Nasiriyah launched attacks on each other immediately following the fall of Baghdad to establish dominance in the new country
Actually, Dorian, your prejudgment was correct.
I would have preferred some Warthogs or staying out completely.
I can’t properly discuss military tactics with a military officer, so I am abrogating and withdrawing from the debate.
(Ha, just joking see you later.)
Actually, my “prejudgment” was based more on politics than on military tactics, dduck.
And, no, I am not a military strategist or even a “tactician.”
Added:
NYT:
As the Republican presidential candidates jockey to appeal to the G.O.P. base, their subdued reactions to developments in Libya illustrate that the neo- side of the conservative movement is in political hibernation.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/g-o-p-candidates-react-to-libya-with-caution-and-indifference/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1
Exactly why I didn’t want to get into a political discussion on this. These guys, politicians, switch sides and attitudes too fast for me. Reps in, war good, Reps out Dems didn’t do it right. Then switch again. And it ain’t just wars, same with other big issues.
Good point Dorian. Though I have to admit that not hearing from the likes of Cheney, Bolton, lil’ Billy Kristol, Richard Perle, ad nauseam is quite refreshing though they’re probably being quiet because as a group they are one of the MAJOR reasons we’re in the predicament(s) that we are today… They just don’t want to be called to task.
The Iraqi cities may have gone immediately for eachothers throats but again, that was a totally different situation. A foreign power had come in, toppled Saddam, destroyed the nations infrastructure, then disbanded the police and military. So basically we shut off the water and electricity, then told everyone there were no cops, what did they expect to happen?
Libya was a revolution. The Libyan people brought it home, not some foreign invading army. The nation is certainly in for some chaos in the aftermath, but not the kind Iraq was in for. They still have people in charge that understand the national situation. Are they going to form a perfect union in a week? Hell no, but we didn’t do that either. Nation building is tough, but they are on the right track.
dduck says:
“Reps in, war good, Reps out Dems didn’t do it right.”
Wow, are you guys (to borrow SteveK’s words) hitting the nails right on the heads today.
Dorian, half a loaf or half a viewpoint won’t slice it. You know Dems do the same two step, merely because it id the other guy’s idea/whatever. Come on, no nailing on my head please.
Sorry, dduck, let me get the nail remover out
Let’s see how those oil contracts get renegotiated and how thoroughly the OIL Companies are going to screw the Libyans before padding ourselves on the back.
Let’s pretend that these things happened during the first four years of the Bush administration and suppose what the republican talking points would have been. Anyone want to guess?
• Osama bin Laden killed.
• Mubarak ousted and on trial for his life.
• Gadhafi ousted.
• Assad on his way out.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of decisions that Obama has made that I don’t like, but…