President Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. FLASHBACK to NPP acceptance speech.

[jefferson_dem]

12-10-09

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention - no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/1210/text-of-barack-obamas-nobel-peace-prize-acceptance-speech

[FSogol]

1. K&R. n/t

[VoteProgressive]

2. Want a list of all the bad countries? nt

[Exilednight]

3. Too bad it doesn't go with what he wrote in his book.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

[Bad Thoughts]

4. Did you turn the page?

Or were you intent to quote out of context? What did he write next, pray tell? He even writes, "I don't have a grand strategy in my hip pocket," before he goes on to broadly outline general principles of foreign and military policy.

[Exilednight]

5. Yes, basically he admits he doesn't have a plan and although he

believes those in charge should have well laid out plans, he freely admits he doesn't have one.

Makes you wonder why we went to Libya in the first place.

[ProSense]

6. There is no contradiction with what he wrote

"Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

It's not a one-size-fits-all policy. Libya is not Iraq. The point is that illegally invading Iraq for regime change was wrong, just as invading North Korea and Burma to effect regime change would be wrong. Why a humanitarian intervention in Bosnia, but not Darfur? A humanitarian intervention isn't synonymous with military action.

Military intervention isn't always appropriate, but it can be carried out legally and with the support of the international community.

The point is consistent in words and actions.

West Wing Week: "Dispatches from Sudan"

Obama's comments and more on Sudan referendum

U.S. Commits $12.6 Million for Côte d’Ivoire Humanitarian Aid

President Obama on Liyba

<...>

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country - Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

<...>

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

<...>

The task that I assigned our forces - to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone - carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

<...>

[jefferson_dem]

10. He asked why... and answered it.

[Exilednight]

11. His answer was that he doesn't have an answer. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

12. Well, it's obvious you did not hear the answer.

Perhaps you were not listening. Try again?

[Exilednight]

13. If I didn't hear them, then please enlighten me. I am curious to know what he wrote in his book

that is so ground breaking in foreign policy and outlines the role of the US in the world.

[daa]

7. Dick Cheney was right, "Obama vindicated our policy" nt

[AtomicKitten]

8. Obama did exactly the opposite of Jr's go-it-alone policy.

But you are free to continue to project Dick Cheney if you like.

[daa]

14. War is war, Obama is now a WAR president

He's not creating jobs, he is putting our kids in harms way for NO REASON.

[AtomicKitten]

16. "NO REASON" ???? Seriously?

It's not a good idea to pretend you are informed by making accusations that are easily disproved had you actually seen/heard the speech.

[daa]

30. No reason and I haven't heard one from you either

[Exilednight]

15. Wow, how fast we forget. Can you list all the countries that invaded

Iraq with us?

[AtomicKitten]

17. And had Qaddafi been allowed to annihilate Benghazi as he threatened --

you no doubt would have been in the chorus complaining.

[Exilednight]

18. You're assuming that he would of made it that far. The rebels were doing a fairly

decent job at holding Gadaffi at bay. Sure, they lost some outer areas, but I am not sure that Benghazi would of fallen.

I don't have a problem with the US voting on the UN resolution. I don't have a problem with France and GB creating a NFZ, my complaint is: why is the US there? This could of been done without us.

If we say we are going hold a set of moral principles, then we need a standard by which to measure each crisis. Everyone runs around yelling that Libya asked for our help. Guess who else asked for our help: the people of the Ivory Coast. Why aren't we over there where thousands of innocent people are already getting slaughtered? We could be somewhere stopping a massacre that is happening instead of heading off a massacre that might or might not have happened.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Qaddafi was right outside Benghazi poised to attack with "NO MERCY on the rats."

The U.S. and other nations are enforcing the UN Security Council Resolution 1974.

Your rhetorical questions were answered in Pres O's speech last night.

[Exilednight]

21. He answered his own questions, he's failed to answer the much larger

questions. Namely, how do we as a nation define our moral values? I want a clear cut definition as to what standards we use to determine to send in military aid to countries in need of it, and he failed to provide that last night.

[AtomicKitten]

22. The Libyans are grateful for the intervention, your kneejerk opposition notwithstanding.

"I want a pony. A pretty one that farts glitter.
Because it's all about me, doncha know?"

[Exilednight]

23. You don't have an answer so you result to personal attacks. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

24. You have no point other than kneejerk opposition.

[Exilednight]

25. You're not going to drag me down in the mud with you. Here's my point

there are other places in the world where real atrocities are already taking place and are asking for help from the west, namely the Ivory Coast.

Obama failed to lay out clear doctrine as to how we pick and choose which areas of the world we intervene in. It's easy to throw around words like "moral obligation" and "collective conscience" when the definitions are fuzzy at best.

If we are going to say that we have moral obligations and a collective conscience, then we need measurable statistics by which to measure that morality. Do we use x amount of people need to be killed, or x% of the population? Maybe we base it on ethnicity in terms of ethnic cleansing. Maybe we use displacement.

But in terms of real world, words like might, could, possibly, can not be used as useful reason when there are places where real atrocities are already taking place.

Obama is worried about the thousands that might, could or possibly be killed by Gaddafi, but is ignoring the 1000s that are being killed by their government in the Ivory Coast.

If we are going to pick and choose, then we need a set of standards that help us pick and choose, but fuzzy definitions aren't going to work.

[AtomicKitten]

26. Blah, blah, blah -- this isn't about you. The Libyans asked for help and got it. End of story.

[Exilednight]

27. If you disagree, then please dispense with the personal attacks and make a valid counter point. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

28. One more & last time ... The Libyans asked for help and got it. End of story.

[Exilednight]

29. So that is Obama's policy? Ask for help and you get it?

Then why is he not doing the same for the Ivory Coast? They're citizens are asking for help?


If that's the criteria, then should we intervene everywhere we are asked to?

[daa]

31. How about some health care for this country? All I see are

sky rocketing premiums to insurance companies.

[Exilednight]

32. That's a whole different discussion. But I agree. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

9. Last night, he hit on the same theme he touched on as a candidate in October 2008 debate.

Last night -

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country - Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. <…>

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.

Second presidential debate (Ocotber 7, 2008)

BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.

Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia. What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?

OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. <…> And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.

But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.

Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html

[jenmito]

20. I recommend that everybody here read this post.

It's almost unbelievable how consistent he's been with his past statements (as well as speeches). Thanks for posting!

[PurityOfEssence]

33. This is justification by somehow disproving a betrayal

Look, you've been a reasonable voice in some of this, and I'd like to tamp down some of the general ire, but this is a through-line that's often used by Obama stalwarts when he gets heat here.

The premise of your thread is that he fully described and was forthcoming about doing just this kind of thing, so nobody has a right to bellyache.

That's got a bit of legitimacy: people have at least some obligation to be paying attention, so if they aren't, that's their fault. That's pretty much the only legitimacy I see for this article, though, unless you're ONLY addressing people who were very solid fans in the past. It doesn't really have much standing there, either, because this is a bunch of things he never really suggested.

Well lodged in my craw is the fact that he has flagrantly broken the law and not subordinated himself to Congress regarding the decision to initiate WAR. That is the Constitutional method, and the disobeying of laws is not just a mere tactical mis-steps, it's an insult to the spirit of the concept of state warfare that we require: the group decides, THEN the leader leads. This is HUGE, especially from a man who consistently tooted his own horn for being honorably within the law, respectful of the system, dedicated to transparency and a "new" kind of dreamy-sweet politician.

The actions taken are NOT just gentle no-fly zones, but mass death-dealing. The A-10 Warthog, which is now being deployed, is the best purpose-built close-air support plane that's probably ever been built. It's 30mm (1.2 inch) diameter explosive shells can be fired at a rate of 70 per SECOND. It's designed to chew up armor, vehicles and human beings. These and other weapons are being used against Qaddafi's forces, but, of course, they had it coming. We will be using the mass killing method rather than the time-consuming and more expensive siege method, because it all comes down to a price tag in the end. This, too, was not what he really depicted.

Now, perhaps people who weren't paying attention to his action and are now claiming deception don't have a leg to stand on, but what about the rest of us many people who saw this literally years ago, have been warning about it and decrying it consistently in print, and are now pointing it out as just as wrong as the prospect was back then? Your argument has no weight whatsoever against those of us who aren't "seeing the light" or "feeling betrayed". We got sneered at and constantly harangued for possibly intimating that he may very well have some, shall we say...uncouth tendencies.

I do not feel betrayed. I am disgusted. The raging moral superiority of those who see their emotions as trumping all dissent is largely unfounded, and we are being served up a ridiculous assessment that the potential dead of Benghazi are actual corpses that will somehow offset the very real ones being made right as I type.

Obama supporters have often demanded that we blindly trust that he will do the right thing, even as he does wrong things: the theory is that he lies to the Republicans, but that he's only lying to THEM. It's strangely akin to the use of Qaddafi's words as "proof" of his intended actions, even when he's been shown to be a complete liar. There is simply no proof that he'd have actually killed everybody in Benghazi, and knowing as he does the world community's reaction to that, there's every reason to believe that he wouldn't. He's a first-class rotter and killer, alright, and people would surely have been killed, but he's also a military man, and he may well have continued chasing them through Gazala and Tobruk to the Egyptian border to crush the rebellion. His motive for securing his territory may have been greater than having a bloodbath. WE DON'T KNOW, and citing the word of a classic, inveterate liar as proof of his intended actions is flawed logic. Maybe he would have, but it sure as hell looked like he was on a serious roll to restore order VERY quickly. On the other hand, there WILL be major killing now, and those bodies are OUR DOING. Also, whatever government comes to power, if it is an unpleasant and/or fundamentalist one, is OUR COMPLETE FAULT. (Conversely, if they're good, that's good on Obama.)

In short, just because some people are sniveling betrayal by his current action, that doesn't mean that the action at hand is good, consistent, or even within the expected levels of violence, and it doesn't address the rest of us at all; we have NOT been fooled. My take on this is not with head back and back of hand draped over my forehead sucking pity for having been deceived; my take is WHAT THE HELL KIND OF ADDLE-HEADED NON-WAR FLIM-FLAM INTERVENTION IS THIS? This isn't a "no-fly zone" and benign "protection of civilians", this is intervention in a civil war, violation of sovereignty, and hiding behind sickly-sweet euphemisms to pick sides and engage in mechanized push-button wholesale killing. Where's the "new" politics in that? Regardless of pure motives, the selling of this exercise is monumentally deceptive. It paves the way for other bits of humanitarian carnage with upstanding sweetness reeking from every pile of human dead. Life desensitizes these things very quickly, and besides, they had it coming.

Our President earned this by his habitual way of being all things to all people, rattling the saber when necessary and speaking in broad and relaxing tones of wisdom in others. The big problem here is the reckless and insulting way he did not let Congress vote on a "special agreement" air the issues, and go on record. It could have been done quickly enough. What this shows is a total disregard for the law and a dangerous and messianic love for the "strong executive", which is something that is an assault on the soul of the Constitution and the heart of the nation.

Yes, this is harsh, but just because some people feel betrayed by a "change", when he actually always was the interventionist at heart doesn't erase the fact of his high-handed havoc and shocking attack on our laws.