Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Obama's words on this issue and his actions lack clarity.
Is the military objective to simply assist with establishing a no fly zone? If so for what purpose?
Is the purpose of the no fly zone to save lives? If so, will prolonging a civil war save lives?
Is the purpose to assist the rebels in overthrowing Kadafi? If so, do they need more support?
If the rebels need more support, how much more are we going to give them? Are we committed to the end? Are we going to only provide support as long as it is politically convenient?
Who are the rebels? Are the rebels committed to a equal human rights for all? If not why support them?
So many questions with no real answers coming from the WH. And worse, we have a Congress and a press crops not demanding answers.
Say what you want about Bush, but one thing was certain - he was no ambiguous regarding the use of our military in Iraq.
|
Over the past month or so, a fluid situation in Libya amidst the outbreak of revolution across the region required a measured but fluid response, with the hope that a quick, however unlikely, result would follow in Libya.
Nearly a month ago (Feb 25) , Obama issued an
Executive Order freezing Libyan assets in the US....an appropriate first step.
A week or so later, the West (France, Britain) sought a UN mandate, first securing the support of the Arab League and all the while cajoling China and Russia not to veto a Security Council resolution...an appropriate next step rather than rushing in with military force without a mandate (unlike Iraq, where Bush simply ignored the fact that there was no mandate).
UN resolutions rarely happen overnight, but are worth the wait to legitimize future actions, at least to some degree.
IMO, both the freezing of assets and the subsequent seeking of a UN mandate were reasonable actions w/o going overboard that brings us to where we are today and where the US message is clear...we did our part, now we expect France and Britain to take the lead.
Will that happen? Who the hell knows.
Already, the Arab League is backing down from its support of the mandate, raising a new set of issues.
We also should be a bit wary about who we arm, recognizing that some among the rebels and the Libyan National Council may have tribal goals rather than national goals...unlike the protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. Do we really want to create another mujaheddin-like (afghan "freedom fighters" that later morphed, at some level, into the Talaban) force in Libya?
I, for one, certainly appreciate this approach rather than rushing in like a crazed cowboy with six guns blazing away.
---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No, it is not complicated.
|
Nothing is complicated in ace world...we know that.