Archive for category Libya
‘Justice will be done… history is on our side… a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed’
Posted by Richard Warnick in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Libya, National Politics, Nuclear Weapons, Syria, Terrorism, This Blog, War on September 25, 2012
President Obama gave a great speech at the United Nations General Assembly this morning. The rest of the world wants to believe that America has not abandoned its founding principles, and our President says we have not. If only his actions conformed to the Constitution, I’d be happy to support him.
We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspirations of men and women who took to the streets.
We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy put us on the side of the people.
We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were not being served by a corrupt status quo.
We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents; and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.
And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin.
We have taken these positions because we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values – they are universal values.
American foreign policy ought to be on the side of the 99 Percent. Similarly, our government ought to stand up for the 99 Percent of Americans.
Citing Nelson Mandela, President Obama received loud applause.
And yet the turmoil of recent weeks reminds us that the path to democracy does not end with the casting of a ballot. Nelson Mandela once said: “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.
In other words, true democracy – real freedom – is hard work. Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent. In hard economic times, countries may be tempted to rally the people around perceived enemies, at home and abroad, rather than focusing on the painstaking work of reform.
And he offered this comment on the limits of American power:
Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue.
He implicitly rejected the neocon view of a world divided, but failed to address the violence against innocent civilians that is perpetrated by the USA:
A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.
…We know from painful experience that the path to security and prosperity does not lie outside the boundaries of international law and respect for human rights.
President Obama concluded (as he began) by citing the example of Chris Stevens, our murdered ambassador to Libya.
And today I promise you this – long after these killers are brought to justice, Chris Stevens’ legacy will live on in the lives he touched. In the tens of thousands who marched against violence through the streets of Benghazi; in the Libyans who changed their Facebook photo to one of Chris; in the sign that read, simply, “Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.
They should give us hope. They should remind us that so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed. Thank you.
UPDATE: New Stanford/NYU study documents the civilian terror from Obama’s drones
The study’s purpose was to conduct an “independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians”.
UPDATE: Romney’s Version of Diplomacy: Insult Egypt, Paint the Developing World as Global Welfare Queen
In his first major foreign policy address, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today laid out a vision for international development steeped in Tea Party ideology… Romney …threw some red meat at his base by ticking off unfavorable developments currently faced by the U.S. in the Muslim world, listing among them the fact that “the president of Egypt is a member of the Muslim brotherhood.”
…A foreign policy expert texted me a single word: “Thud.”
Romney’s Total Neocon Meltdown
Posted by Richard Warnick in 2012 Elections, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Disaster, Egypt, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mitt Romney, National Politics, This Blog, War on September 13, 2012
The Romney-Ryan campaign achieved a new low on September 11. Willard (“Mitt”) Romney attempted to suggest that President Obama is in league with Arab terrorists, and implied that “American values” include bigotry and hatred based on religious differences. He left the press conference with a self-satisfied smirk reminiscent of the last Republican president. Indeed, Romney’s irresponsible reaction to violence in Libya and Egypt is the surest indication that he plans to repeat the mistakes of George W. Bush.
Because Romney has had almost nothing to say about foreign policy, not enough attention has been focused on who he would appoint to key positions in the White House, Pentagon, and State Department. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. John Bolton and other rabid neocons head the list.
Bolton is one of eight Romney advisers who signed letters drafted by the Project for a New American Century, an influential neoconservative advocacy group founded in the 1990s, urging the Clinton and Bush administrations to attack Iraq. PNAC founding member Paula Dobriansky, leading advocate of Bush’s ill-fated “freedom agenda” as an official in the State Department, recently joined the Romney campaign full time. Another PNAC founder, Eliot Cohen, counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2007 to 2009, wrote the foreword to the Romney campaign’s foreign policy white paper, which was titled, perhaps not coincidentally, “An American Century.” Cohen was a tutor to Bush administration neocons. Following 9/11, he dubbed the war on terror “World War IV,” arguing that Iraq, being an “obvious candidate, having not only helped Al Qaeda, but…developed weapons of mass destruction,” should be its center. In 2009 Cohen urged the Obama administration to “actively seek the overthrow” of Iran’s government.
…Romney’s team is notable for including Bush aides tarnished by the Iraq fiasco: Robert Joseph, the National Security Council official who inserted the infamous “sixteen words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union message claiming that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger; Dan Senor, former spokesman for the hapless Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer in Iraq; and Eric Edelman, a top official at the Pentagon under Bush.
There is plenty to criticize in President Obama’s foreign policy, including his conduct of the war in Afghanistan, the failure to close Guantanamo and end preventive detention, the out-of-control drone war in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries, the Libya intervention without congressional authorization, and his attempt to retain military bases in Iraq. However, short of starting a war with Iran, it would be hard to imagine how Obama could do as badly as Bush. America’s allies around the world (with the possible exception of Netanyahu’s Israel) see the Obama administration as an improvement. Our relations with Russia and China have gotten better, too.
Far from creating his own crisis as Bush did, Obama was hit with one, the Arab Spring. We can’t know how all that will turn out, and things certainly look bleak at this moment in Egypt and Libya. But Obama did the only things that could be done at the time. Can you imagine the United States siding with Hosni Mubarak against those people in Tahrir Square, or permitting the pre-advertised massacre of thousands in Benghazi?
The world is the world. Obama can’t wave a wand at it. But he can do what he has done, which is to run a sober and responsible foreign policy, not one based on theories developed in think-tank seminars underwritten by some hawkish Israeli billionaire. Obama’s approach to foreign policy is the one that has guided this country at its best moments (which have not, alas, been as frequent as we’d like), and it’s the foreign policy most Americans want.
UPDATE: Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) says President Obama “is apologizing because he didn’t like America.” With friends like Akin, Romney doesn’t need enemies.
UPDATE: Bob Cesca: Mitt Romney Kneejerks Into Another Colossal Blunder (Given an opportunity to look presidential, Romney decided to channel Rush Limbaugh instead)
Halas, Finished, Game Over
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Libya, National Politics, War on August 23, 2011
A caller to CNN described her joy at the ending of Gaddafi’s nearly 42-year rule in Libya, translating a common Arabic word into English: “Halas, finished, game over.”
That was yesterday. Today we have reports that Bab al-Aziziya, Gaddafi’s last stronghold in Tripoli has fallen to the rebels, and the Libyan revolution has succeeded.
The BBC’s Rana Jawad in Tripoli says there is a real sense that this is the end of Col Gaddafi’s rule, but the proper celebrations will not begin until he and his family are found.
There are still pockets of resistance in Tripoli near to the Hotel Rixos, where many foreign journalists are staying.
And the situation is unclear in the colonel’s hometown of Sirte, which has been a stronghold of regime loyalists.
Reports said retreating government troops had been pouring back to Sirte, and rumours circulated suggesting that the colonel may have fled there.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions. What role did NATO and the U.S. military and CIA play in Gaddafi’s downfall? What has happened to Libya’s stockpile of 20,000 hand-held surface-to-air missiles? What comes next– can the Libyan Transitional National Council (TNC) form a legitimate government and handle internal security, or will foreign peacekeepers be called in?
UPDATE: Juan Cole: Top ten myths about the Libya war
UPDATE: Libya’s deadliest weapons may be unguarded, and unaccounted for.
UPDATE: HuffPo offers a collection of video reports. One rebel/looter managed to snag Gaddafi’s hat– maybe he can sell it on eBay.
UPDATE: John McCain Debunks Right-Wing’s ‘Sharia In Libya’ Claim
UPDATE: Journalists Freed From Rixos Hotel In Tripoli
UPDATE: Qaddafi Hearts Condi? Condoleeza Rice Photo Album Found In Libyan Leader’s Compound
Where Are the White House Solar Panels President Obama Promised?
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Climate Change, Energy, Libya, National Politics, Public Lands, This Blog on June 22, 2011
Remember nine months ago the Obama administration promised to put solar panels back on the White House roof? We’re still waiting. Bill McKibben on AlterNet (emphasis added):
Thirty two years ago today, President Jimmy Carter installed a series of solar panels on the White House roof. He stood up there on the roof that day, and issued an oracular warning: “A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, or it can be a small part of the greatest adventures undertaken by the American people.”
We found out the answer in much less than a generation — it only took six years for Ronald Reagan to rip them off the roof. But we thought we’d gotten a new chance last fall when the Obama administration promised that solar panels would go back up this spring.
…So what’s the hold up? Possibly Obama just prefers coal: earlier this spring he opened up a huge swath of federal land in Wyoming for mining, the equivalent of inaugurating 30 coal-fired power plants. More likely, his political advisors are afraid people will connect him with Carter — that he’ll catch some kind of electoral cooties and lose his campaign for a second term. My best guess? I think he’s just concentrating on other things, and that to him global warming is a second-tier problem.
President Carter got solar panels installed faster, and that was before you could simply look in the Yellow Pages and find a company that would do it. Maybe President Obama is too busy playing golf with Republicans, or spending well over $700 million (so far) in an attempt to take Libya’s oil. Solar is cheaper!
More info:
Administration Fails Pledge To Return Solar To White House Roof By Spring
Obama Administration Fails On Promise To Put Solar Panels On White House Roof By June 21
UPDATE: Gore Slams Obama As Climate Change Failure
“[Obama's] election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change,” Gore says. “Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, is in the second category. Why?”
UPDATE: Fox News’ Top 10 Lies About Climate Science
Previous One Utah post:
Yes They Can: 350.org Persuades the White House to Go Solar Again (October 5, 2010)
War in Libya – 77 Days Without Congressional Authorization
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, congress, Foreign Policy, Libya, National Politics, The Constitution, War, War Crimes on June 4, 2011
Maybe American government has put aside concerns over the Constitution once and for all. How else can we explain the United States Armed Forces fighting an unprovoked war in Libya without any congressional authorization? There is bipartisan opposition to the war among members of Congress, which has so far been countered by Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.
By the way, President Obama’s defenders claim that the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR) gave the President the ability to wage war in Libya for 60 days without congressional authorization. In fact, there is no such unfettered power– as candidate Obama himself pointed out in 2007. Section 1541(c) of the WPR explicitly states that the 60-day grace period applies only to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Libya never attacked us.
Today is Day 77 of this war, anyway. It’s an illegal war without any doubt or room for argument.
UPDATE: A bipartisan group of congressmen has filed a lawsuit against President Obama.
The lawsuit challenges what the lawmakers see as “the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution.”
UPDATE: As the Libyan War reaches the 3-month mark, the Obama White House staff has come up with a truly bizarre reason for not obtaining congressional authorization – U.S. operations there are not “hostilities” by the new Obama definition of the word.
We Own Libya Now, For Better Or Worse
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Disaster, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Libya, Military, National Politics, War on April 1, 2011
As a Vietnam veteran, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell knew a quagmire when he saw one. Before the Iraq invasion, he cautioned President Bush’s inner circle that “once you break it, you are going to own it.” Always-wrong NYT columnist Tom Friedman called this “the Pottery Barn Rule” despite the fact Pottery Barn has no such rule.
Powell was right, and a large part of the U.S. Army is still in Iraq eight years later. You can bet that Libya won’t end soon either. And we have no plan worthy of the name.
The bottom line is that we own Libya now, for the long term. We won’t abandon the rebels, regardless of how utterly feckless they are. We also own the Libyan aftermath – and we have no idea of how that looks like. We have a lot of hopes for what it may look like, but as we learned in Iraq, hope is not a plan. And that’s why those of us who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were so bloody reluctant to get involved in Libya – because in some key respects, it bore a highly uncomfortable resemblance to what we experienced.
Reports from Libya indicate the anti-Gaddafi insurgents consist of about a thousand mostly-amateur fighters, and they are up against an army of at least 10,000. Gaddafi’s forces are starting to hide their tanks and artillery and advance in pickup trucks, which are harder to target from the air.
The defection of Libyan foreign minister (and former terrorism mastermind) Musa Kusa may be a turning point, or it might not.
Whatever footwear the CIA people on the ground in Libya may have, President Obama rules out boots.
If the Gaddafi regime falls, some predict an extended civil war as tribal factions fight for power.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya. No mire is too quaggy for the good old USA. People have forgotten we still have troops in Bosnia, as part of the NATO occupation there. Stay tuned for updates.
UPDATE: Cloud cover over Libya has hampered the NATO/USA air campaign for the last three or four days.
UPDATE: Libyan opposition lays out conditions for cease-fire
Sources close to Gadhafi told CNN that political solutions are still possible but that the Libyan leader would relinquish power only to others within his inner circle.
UPDATE: Gaddafi rejects rebel truce offer.
UPDATE: On FDL, Phoenix Woman examines the European concerns about stemming a Libyan refugee crisis.
UPDATE: It’s surprising it took this long to happen. A U.S. A-10 Thunderbolt mistakenly destroyed four rebel vehicles including an ambulance, killing at least 13.
Spencer Ackerman:
For the next few days, A-10 gunships will continue to fly over Libya, where they’ve conducted strikes against Gadhafi regime armor and artillery for the past week. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that after NATO takes full control of the strike operations, the A-10s will go on “standby,” to be used in Libya only if non-U.S. aircraft fail to stop a new humanitarian emergency.
UPDATE: So much for the supposed patriotic duty to support the Commander in Chief no matter what. That was then, and this is now. Fox Relentlessly Bashes Obama Over Libya.
Previously on One Utah: Archive for category Libya.
An Interesting Question About War on Libya
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Disaster, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Libya, Military, National Politics, War on March 25, 2011
Glenn Greenwald asks an interesting question (emphasis added):
[Advocates of the U.S. attack on Libya say] it’s humane and noble to topple a brutal dictator; using force is the only way to protect parts of the population from slaughter…; it’s not in America’s interests to allow a deranged despot (or his deranged sons) to control a vital oil-rich nation; and removing the tyrant will aid the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Why does that reasoning justify war in Libya but not Iraq?
Of course, this time we have an U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the war (although, curiously, the President failed to get any authorization from Congress). There is pretty good evidence that Gaddafi’s attack on Benghazi would have killed lots of rebels and civilians, and that the Allied air intervention inflicted a tactical defeat on Libyan government forces.
The rest of the situation is murky. The Libya end game is unknown, even in military terms. Air power by itself is almost never decisive on the strategic level (nuclear weapons being the exception). Many members of Congress are probably secretly relieved they didn’t have to vote on this. With the Middle East in an uproar, how will the Libya operation affect Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and other unstable countries?
And so, once again America has attacked an oil-rich Arab state. This time by order of a Democratic commander-in-chief. Whenever I encounter that cliche, “Elections have consequences,” I think I’ll ask for proof. When you look at it substantively, there is just too much bipartisanship in Washington.
UPDATE: This afternoon, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said that air strikes on urban areas have been ruled out. Which means stalemate for now, because Gaddafi’s ground forces are positioned in urban areas.
UPDATE: Rebels have pushed Gaddafi’s forces out of Ajdabiya. It’s an achievement, but it still leaves them 500 miles from Tripoli. Even before President Obama goes on TV Monday to tell us what this war is about, mission creep is starting to develop. The “no-fly zone” has already morphed into tactical air support, and the Obama administration is debating whether to send arms and other aid to the rebels. That will necessitate some kind of a ground operation. There have been reports of British special forces already in Libya.
UPDATE: Rebel advance stopped at the outskirts of Sirte by Gaddafi forces.
Without air strikes it appears the rebels are not able to make advances or even hold ground. The battle around Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace, will reveal if the rebel advance has reached its limit.
Recent Comments