The New Republic: Why isn’t Obama getting credit for stopping an atrocity?

[dennis4868]

Here is one lesson we can draw from the mostly negative media commentary about the Obama administration’s actions in Libya: Presidents get more credit for stopping atrocities after they begin than for preventing them before they get out of hand.

The U.S.-led NATO intervention that stopped mass killing in Bosnia in 1995, for example, came only after 200,000 people had already been killed. But because we had witnessed massacre after massacre after massacre over three years of fighting in Bosnia, the difference NATO made when it ended the carnage was palpable, and Bill Clinton’s achievement in mobilizing the intervention and then negotiating a peace accord was broadly recognized.

Four years later, NATO acted more quickly to stop atrocities in Kosovo, but still not fast enough to prevent Serbian troops from driving nearly a million Kosovar civilians from their homes. When NATO’s military intervention eventually allowed those people to return to their homes, most deemed it a success. We had seen horrifying crimes unfold before our eyes, and then those crimes ceased; again we could see and feel the difference Clinton and NATO had made. In Libya, many people (we don’t yet know how many) were arrested, forcibly disappeared and possibly executed as the Qaddafi government consolidated its control over Tripoli and rebel-held enclaves, like Zawiyah, in the country’s west. But the Obama administration and its international allies did act soon enough to prevent the much larger-scale atrocities that would likely have followed Qaddafi’s reconquest of eastern Libya and especially the city of Benghazi. Indeed, though this intervention must have felt painfully slow to the people of Benghazi as Qaddafi’s army bore down upon them, it was, by any objective standard, the most rapid multinational military response to an impending human rights crisis in history, with broader international support than any of the humanitarian interventions of the 1990s.

The rest of the article is here....http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/85856/the-speed-paradox

I know the "24/7 DU Obama haters no matter what the facts are" keep saying what was happening in Libya was not a genocide but what is wrong with stopping a genocide before it happens? Isn't that the better way to handle things instead of waiting for thousands to be murdered and slaughtered? Obama is truly the only adult in the room!

[Frances]

1. When are we going to learn?

Whatever Obama does is wrong. There truly is a vast right wing conspiracy paid for by Murdoch, Ailes (sp) and their expensive hirelings at Fox news as well as billionaires like the Koch brothers.

[ProudDad]

63. When he does everything wrong...

everything he does will be wrong...

What part of that don't you understand?

What major initiative against corporate rule, against the arming of dictators, stopping the wars of the Empire, against the National Security (Spying) State that he has EXTENDED, for workers against their capitalist oppressors...

WHAT THE FUCK OF SUBSTANCE HAS HE DONE???

Why didn't he even fucking go to Wisconsin and stand with working people against corporate funded assholes??

No, Obama goes to kiss ass at the FUCKING U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE!

Get it through your head -- he's NOT the president of working people. He's NOT a Peace President. He's a corporate tool by choice, inclination and training...

In fact, unless you're a goddamn billionaire, he's not YOUR president at all...

[dionysus]

2. k&r

[atreides1]

3. Define genocide?

The actual legal definition...not the one that fits your view.

[dennis4868]

5. I really dont care what the legal definition is....

all I know is that Qhaddaffi promised to slaughter thousands of people in a short period of time and the international community had to act.....if you were one of those thousands of people WOULD YOU GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE IS? Give me a break....

[shraby]

7. Legal definitions are immaterial when people are getting

slaughtered. Wanton killing is wanton killing no matter what label it has.

[krawhitham]

53. "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

[nevergiveup]

4. Obama is not going to get much credit these days at DU

no matter what he does. After Obama announced the end of DADT there was an eerie silence from many regulars here. If we had done nothing in Libya and there had been a huge massacre at Benghazi Obama would have been brutalized.

[dennis4868]

6. you are so right!

It's getting harder and harder to come to DU these days....

[Pirate Smile]

9. There is a segment on the left that is just as reflexively anti-Obama as they are on the right.

We see it at certain websites every day and they bring it here.

[cottonseed]

28. When DU is boiling over you know Obama's just made a decision. When it's quiet. It was right.

And this place is either boiling over or very, very quiet.

[vaberella]

8. It's how I realize people don't criticize his policies.

They attack the man. This site has always been overly critical of him and many people expect to remain so.

I mean I hate that we went into Libya---although the reasons against it are very minor when you're counting the thousands of people killed and raped in the nation because of Gaddafi and we're standing by...

[no limit]

10. Atrocities are happening all around the world. Should we be stopping all of them?

Ask people in Darfur about atrocities.

[Recursion]

15. What a silly argument

For God's sake. I oppose the intervention but the idea that we can't stop one atrocity unless we stop all is imbecilic.

[no limit]

16. What makes this one so special?

The argument the OP made is that we need to stop atrocities. So what makes this atrocity so special? How do we know that if Gaddafi is taken out the rebels won't start committing atrocities of their own?

[Recursion]

17. Why should something make it "special"?

I seriously don't understand what you're asking.

[no limit]

18. Like I said, atrocities happening all around the world. We aren't getting involved in them

except for this one. So what makes this one so special? There must be a reason that we got involved here while we don't get involved elsewhere. Or are you saying the idea that there must be reasoning behind our military intervention in this case is absurd?

[Recursion]

19. Again, why should something make it "special"?

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that there must be something "special" about an atrocity for the US to intervene in it, and I'm not sure why.

[Recursion]

21. If you mean what makes intervention politically tenable there, as opposed to other places...

...the answer is the Arab League, France, and Italy.

[no limit]

27. Have we asked the arab league, france, or Italy for interviention elsewhere?

Not that I'm aware of, why not?

[Recursion]

29. You have it backwards; they asked us (nt)

[no limit]

34. That's a fair enough point.

But they have their own selfish political reasons for wanting this no-fly zone while not wanting intervention elsewhere. So if that's the only requirement on wether we intervine or not I'm not really buying it.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

32. so we shouldn't save anyone then? grow a heart, pal.

[no limit]

35. How do you pick and choose which ones you save and which ones you don't?

That proposition alone seems kind of heartless in itself. You're saying that we get to decide who is important enough to help and who isn't.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

36. Once again, you would rather help noone instead???

[no limit]

37. I would rather we don't intervine. You didn't answer my question

[Union Scribe]

65. Heart = bombing campaigns

Good thinking, "pal"

[BklnDem75]

11. Some people prefer an actual genocide to happen first...

before we can deem it an emergency that we should do something about. THEN they can complain about Obama's indecisiveness and lack of leadership. There's no winning with these folks.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. I guess because he's not stopping (or didn't stop) the "right" atrocity

It's all about the oil. It HAS to be, right? :shrug: :eyes:

:sarcasm:

[dennis4868]

13. I think alot of people here...

started following politics during the Bush years and learned not to trust Bush because all of his lies....now they are reflexively doing the same to Obama (Obama is being punnished for Bush's dishonesty).

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

39. You're saying Obama doesn't lie?

[dennis4868]

40. yes....he may change positions....

because circumstances change....but i don't think he lies....to prove someone is lying you have to show that when the person said something he knew it was not true....good luck trying to prove that....hahahaha!

[no limit]

41. You do know the guy in your avatar picking his nose makes the exact same argument, right?

That as long as you can't prove he knew he was lying it wasn't technically lying.

When Obama said he didn't know who Snooki was when just a few weeks earlier he mentioned her in a speech was he lying?

Now, if he is willing to lie about Snooki what else do you think he lies about?

[Dokkie]

42. for the love of god

give him a pass. I wouldn't admit to know who snooki is. Its not what you expect from a POTUS, the writer who put the snooki joke in his speech should be fired. But on this Libyan affair, I think the POTUS is just dancing to the beats of the MIC and the oil companies, its not coincidence that the invaded the country with the largest oil reserves in the continent and was at the same time flying around the world trying to playing salesman for the MIC. Hes probably doing the best he allowed to do while completing the tasks given to him by his big donors.

Bill Hicks and George Carlin were right

[dennis4868]

44. you really think this is about oil....

so that's why the USA is letting NATO take over the military action....USA wants the oil so badlt that they are doing everything they can to get put of Libya....this is crazy at the highest level!

[Dokkie]

52. Of course

Its all about oil. USA is a big part of NATO and just like the US, all the other NATO countries are beholden to the same big oil corporation as the US. So it makes no difference whose leading what because when the fight is over, it would be the oil companies grabbing the oil fields and not the USA.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

47. It was the most benign example I can think of, it was a lie

you might have a good point that there was a reason to lie. But the claim that is being made that Obama doesn't lie is absolutely absurd.

[dennis4868]

43. never saw the movie....cant afford too....

all I am saying is that I do not believe Obama ever lied.....

As another poster said regarding why so many here hate Obama 24/7 no matter what the facts are: "It might be an anti-(any) authority thing too.
There's plenty of room to criticize President Obama on a lot of fronts (but I'm still much more supportive than not) but the intense and often reflexive nature of the criticism I see here (and elsewhere) just seems so disproportionate to his alleged "offenses", not to mention the outright lies, hyperbolic speculation, de-contextualization of comments/actions, and willingness to believe absolutely anything negative about him."

[no limit]

46. I would love to see the world through such rosy glasses

a world where politicians don't lie just because they have a (D) after their name.

[dennis4868]

48. I never said Ds dont lie.....

[no limit]

50. Okay, just saint Obama then

[dennis4868]

55. yep.....

[ProudDad]

64. Of course it is...

If the "opposition" was in one of the many countries where they don't have oil he wouldn't have done shit --

As the USAmerican Empire doesn't and hasn't unless it's "strategically important"...

The list of countries in the world with much worse human right violations and USAmerican armed governments is a long one...

Hmmm, Obama's going to address them next, right? :sarcasm:

[Xithras]

14. Preventative War = Bush Doctrine

Once you accept the premise that war is acceptable because something might happen, you can justify attacking anyone.

[harun]

20. LOL, how does one know there will be genocide before genocide?

GW is that you?

[BklnDem75]

22. Case in point...

If genocide happens, it's already too late. The whole point is to prevent it before it happens, not do something after it happens.

[harun]

24. I'll wait for the proof genocide was "going" to happen in Lybia.

Which of course there will be none. It was a civil war, one that has been going on for a long time.

I am all for protecting the innocent, but the first death in any armed conflict is the truth. And to say this conflict was undertaken to stop a genocide is a ludicrous lie.

[BklnDem75]

26. The conflict was undertaken...

to stop follow-through on a promise which was well underway.

[bvar22]

23. Because this one is FAR from over.

If "The Rebels" that we are fighting for turn out to be worse than Qaddafi,
(SEE: Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.)


if Qaddafi Loyalists are slaughtered after the Big Rebel Win,

if Libya dissolves into chaos because we Took Out The Bad Guy without a plan for What happens after,

if it turns out that we are mired in another quagmire attempting to keep rival "Rebel" factions from killing each other,

if we ultimately find that "The Rebels" are supplying training and weaponry to the "insurgents" we are fighting in other Middle East Wars,


....will Obama get the blame?


If those supporting this Military Expansion in the Middle East can please point to a single successful US Military Intervention in the Middle East or Asia in the last 50 years,
I would be happy to listen.

[Exilednight]

25. It's bad policy and sets a terrible precedent.

We are telling the rest of the world that is actually seeing cases of genocide that we don't care unless you're either (a) labeled part of the access of evil (b) a country that has huge oil reserves or some other precious natural resource that we need (c) not a friend of our allies or (d) all of the above - then you are not worth our time to save.

No matter what your litmus test, Ivory Coast is in worst condition than Libya is or would be by this point, yet no one within the administration is advocating for the use of force "by any means necessary" in order to protect their civilians. Darfur is about to turn into another hotbed and possibly another outbreak of genocide, but let's see if we intervene there.

You ask what is wrong with stopping a genocide before it happens? If you really believe in the rule of law, then you know why it is wrong. Just because someone threatens someone, we don't lock them up and throw away the key. A crime has to be committed before we arrest them.

Obama, Hillary and Rice made a poor policy decision.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. HERE IS WHY HE GETS NO CREDIT

Look, there is no doubt that there is a humanitarian crisis in Libya. The good guys are getting their asses handed to them by the bad guys.

So in that light, yes, it's great, at face value, that we are going to (once again), try and bolster the "freedom fighters" (and hope they don't decide to turn on us later, ala the Taliban).

BUT.

First of all, we all know that there are humanitarian crises all around the world. But they don't have oil or other natural resources that can be exploited.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone and everyone by now that our involvement in the middle east is first and foremost about securing America's access to oil. Despite the many tunes of "WMD", and "Freedom and Democracy", the real story is pretty obvious by now.

Second of all, right now we are facing cuts in teachers and public services because "we just can't afford it". Oh, but we can afford to expand our war efforts in the middle easy. As per usual, there is always money for war.

President Obama is not going to get any credit for Libya because 1) No one believes this is primarily about a humanitarian effort and 2) It doesn't jive with the story of imminent budget crisis.

In short: President Obama has retreated so far from the moral high ground that one moral victory doesn't amount to much elevation.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zalinda]

38. And if you really look at the 'war for oil'

It is costing the American people much more than $100 a barrel. How much is a young life worth? Apparently, governments don't care, especially this government. Oil seems to be much more valuable than people, in their eyes.

zalinda

[Cali_Democrat]

51. Because the US economy runs on oil and the profits generated from GDP growth need to continue

Of course most of the gains in GDP growth have gone to the wealthy in the last decade while middile class incomes have been completely stagnant and have actually fallen when you factor in inflation. The poor and middile class have become poorer while the wealthy are doing better than ever

The money flowing to the wealthy that is generated from GDP growth is more valuable than human lives in their eyes. Oil is what drives the machine.

[emilyg]

45. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

49. Ouch

Brutal truth.

[kjackson227]

56. Soo, I guess no one here drives an automobile...

I think first and foremost the president got involved in Libya because of the humanitarian effort. We must remember that Ghaddafi(sp) was threatening to slaughter his people, and the rebels asked us for our assistance. And, yes, I'm sure that President Obama did take into consideration how this would/could hurt our access to oil. We sit and complain about this president securing our access to oil, while at the same time we all know that this country has a major addiction to it. Face it, oil is almost $5.00 a gallon in some states, so how would paying more at the pump help this economy??? Our dependency on oil is the problem, not the president, so the anger generated by some on DU is misplaced.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. As they say...

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."

If it's all about a humanitarian effort, then there are lots of places around the world suffering under dictators that could use our help.

But the simple fact is we are only interested in helping places where there is money to be made.

But even if it was all about a humanitarian effort, why do we have money to pay for nice things for citizens of other countries when we are neglecting our own people here?

Answer: There's no money in helping people here, but there's lots of money to be made choosing good, or at least convenient bedfellows in the middle east.

Yes, rising gas prices won't help our economy, but squeezing the last drops of oil out of the middle east is just going to delay the inevitable.

If we spent the same amount of money developing alternative energy and alternative transport that we have spent on military efforts for the last decade we would be much, much farther ahead of the game.

[kjackson227]

59. And, as they say... "you're entitled to your own opinions...

etc., etc., etc. But, the few facts I do know is that, 1. The Libyan rebels specifically called on the United States to help with humanitarian efforts. 2. This was an international effort, 3. We have withdrawn, and the no-fly effort was a success and is in the hands of NATO now. And, yes, this was a humanitarian effort which INCLUDED concerns regarding our access to oil for this country.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

58. Thrilled to recommend. And three cheers for being reasonable! n/t

[SpartanDem]

60. If Obama didn't get involved people would still blame it on it oil

I've pointed out that oil companies might have benefited more from not getting involved with Libya by not disrupting production and protecting their current oil contracts with Libya, rather deal with the unknown rebels. So you could make a case oil that companies could potentially benefit from non-involvement or involvement with Libya. The it's a war for oil crowd premises is that whatever the US does in the Middle East it must be about oil/US interest, they merely picks the argument that suits this instance. If Obama had ignored the rebels request for help these same people would be arguing how he didn't help them because it benefits oil companies.

This is not say that US interest shouldn't be considered as a motivation, but I think when use that as the sole measure as I think many are doing you can misjudge things. Almost anything this country does or does not do you can find an angle that benefits someone and you get sort of a self fulfilling prophesy. Because no matter how you look things you can find a benefit for the US or one of it's business interest.

[WiffenPoof]

61. Because It Is Hard To Prove A Negative n/t

[Igel]

62. "Prevent" vs "stop."

The distinction is crucial.

However, it's apparently also crucial to overlook the distinction.