It's clear what we're NOT doing, but what ARE we doing?

[PurityOfEssence]

Okay, let's recap:

We're not in a war.
We're not the leaders, and we'll be passing off the control soon.
We're not supporting the armed rebels, although we've destroyed 70+ vehicles.
We're not going to send in ground troops.
We're not trying to kill Qaddafi, even though we've hit his compound and targeted it one other time.
We're not trying to affect regime change with this operation, even as we flatly state that he must go.
We're not taking sides in the internal dispute.
We're not going to be engaged in a long affair here.
We're not doing this for oil.

Okay, so far, so good.

So what ARE we doing?

Do we REALLY think he's going to decide to go away peacefully?
Do we think that his supporters don't know they're toast if he goes?
Do we think that those civilians we care so much about won't die in droves in a prolonged siege?
Do we think we're going to start up oil production with the provisional government?
Do we think we can make up their production elsewhere at a time when other producers are wobbling?
Do we think that other nations won't compel us to stop before too long?
Do we think that our forces will be available for this for long enough?
Do we think our enemies won't take advantage of the opportunity while we're entangled here?
Do we think there won't be resistance from the world community to military aid or arms shipments?
Do we think there won't be an outcry if the rebels recruit mercenaries, as they're hinting today?
Do we think one of our allies will be providing the probably necessary ground troops?
Do we think a resolution where Qaddafi stays won't be a monumental disaster for the Administration?

Mr. Rogers goes to war. Can you say "Hornswoggled"? I knew that you could...

[villager]

1. It's a certainly a splendid cover for this summer's $6.00 a gallon gas

...which will further enrich our benevolent corporate masters...

[Vinee]

4. the only folks getting rich off of that will be the oil producing nations.

picture a financial black hole from which no US dollars can escape. And there's only one way to deal with dollars disappearing down that black hole, print more.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Yes, but we'll work out a good deal, and the rebels threatened to deny oil to those who don't help

Regardless of Qaddafi's resilience, chances are pretty good the rebels will prevail at least SOMEDAY, after much foreign money and some blood, and they've already VERY pronouncedly threatened to punish countries who don't come to their aid. Here's a little something from March 14th:

But the UN is dithering too, with China and Russia blocking a deal. In part to try and break this deadlock, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, has warned countries that fail to support the uprising they will be denied access to Libya’s vast oil riches if the regime is deposed.

He tells today’s Financial Times that any post-Gaddafi leadership would adjust Libya’s oil policies “according to the positions countries are taking towards Libya in these difficult times”.

http://priceofoil.org/2011/03/14/libyan-rebels-threaten-to-deny-oil-to-dithering-nations/

Is it too much of a stretch to presume that our major oil companies are also negotiating sweetheart deals behind the scenes? Something says they have an angle to increase profits or availability or both, so I'd say our fellow board-mate Villager has a leg to stand on here.

Qaddafi has been downplayed as someone who was keeping the oil flowing freely, as an attempt to "prove" that this isn't about oil. This simply isn't true: back in ott-nine, he reduced the percentage of oil produced by certain foreign companies that could be withdrawn, and he did so by threatening nationalization. Again, the apologists dismiss this because he also extended the period of the contracts, but with the proclaimed right of nationalization, that's NOTHING AT ALL; he claims he can take over at any time. The French Company TOTAL was pissed at this, but, of course, this has nothing to do with the sudden rekindling of the desire to oust Qaddafi.

But it's not about oil. Oh no, oil is not the least of considerations. It's our traditional love of freedom.

I don't discount some sympathy--maybe even a lot--with the people's movement, but it looks a bit like this is the dynamic, too: We were hoping they'd get rid of Qaddafi with us not having to spend any real money when it looked like the insurgency was working, but when it suddenly looked like Qaddafi was going to prevail, we realized that Qaddafi would punish us, so we HAD to come to the aid of the rebels. Still hoping to do it on the cheap, we waited too long, then had to act immediately.

Bear in mind that NOTHING is the sole guiding influence here, and those who are trying to sell you a simplistic set of blames is either deluded or deluding; there are elements of oil, sympathy, vengeance and grandstanding going on here, and our motives are as compromised as our methods are inadequate.

[tabatha]

2. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x725779

[bobbolink]

6. thanks, Tabitha. Sadly, minds are made up, and there is no room for any other facts that could

fit in.

This is heartbreaking. :cry:

[PurityOfEssence]

7. That works both ways

The righteous cause (and there's no sarcasm here; Qaddafi's a fiend) outweighs all else, including respecting the Constitution, telling the truth about one's intent and leading an effective campaign.

If you read peoples' posts carefully, I think you'll find that MANY of the people who have problems with this would accept it if Obama hadn't flouted the Constitution with military operations in a way that no President has since the War Powers Act became law 38 years ago. Frankly, I don't know where I'd stand; I have MANY problems with this. There are plenty of historical instances where the opponents of an ugly regime have proven themselves to be sufficiently or more ugly themselves. I vividly remember the "Anyone would be better than the Shah" slap-downs for anyone questioning the overt religious uprising in 1979, and I was anti-Shah in those debates, but VERY wary of fundamentalism

The dangling of favorable oil concessions further cheapens the rebels' cause.

If the rebellion had the true and undeniable groundswell that would make claims of legitimacy undeniable, he wouldn't have been able to muster or buy enough support to take them down, and his campaign was succeeding VERY quickly. There's something to be said there: if they couldn't do it themselves, maybe it shouldn't be.

I hope, should the rebels succeed, that those who insult opponents for hating the innocent victims and being callous will take full responsibility for ANY actions taken by the new government. Prepare yourself for this, because, should they succeed and do anything untoward, you'll hear it, and you should: you'll be personally responsible.

Your mind and the minds of many others are just as inflexible as you claim we are, and we're both lumping together a broad spectrum of positions into simplistic binary ones that simply don't fit.

The very idea of claiming unquestionable moral superiority when supporting an unconstitutional military attack and sustained campaign is ridiculous. To decry OPPONENTS of military intervention as less moral is self-congratulatory puffery and twaddle.

[bobbolink]

8. Your charges aside... have you read any of the statements coming from the

Transitional National Council?

I suggest you do that before assigning motivations to me.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Yes, and some of them are heartening

I'm glad that they make a point of their participants who are for secularism. I like the fact that there's an interest in women's rights.

They may be a good thing, but there is also participation of former Qaddafi officials who have some blood on their hands.

By what do you claim the right to take the moral high ground and have immunity from that self-pronouncement? I'm being somewhat measured in my missives, and have hardly insulted the underlying motivations for those who support the rebellion; I take extreme issue with the misrepresentations of armed combatants as civilians, the fast-and-easy disregard for the Constitution, the reckless assumption that things are as they seem and will go swimmingly, and with the characterization of anyone who has problems with the President's actions as unfeeling or in support of tyranny.

Those who support the rebels in this situation do not have a prima facie RIGHT to being viewed as morally superior, and they don't have the right to impugn those who disagree on grounds of Constitutionality, opaqueness of the situation or issues of questionable motivations of certain factions in the rebellion.

Because one sides with protesters, one does not have immunity from criticism; that's an evocation of privilege. It's also bad manners, and the self-proclamation of moral superiority is insulting to communal discourse.

[bobbolink]

10. You talk about "motivations", then you say I am claiming "moral superiority".

"Those who support the rebels in this situation do not have a prima facie RIGHT to being viewed as morally superior, and they don't have the right to impugn those who disagree"

Right there you are assigning motives, and it is bogus.

I know it makes no difference to you, as you have already condemned us, but I will tell you that all of us who have taken this stand have suffered greatly in coming to the conclusion that we have.

You have made quite a pile of erroneous charges, and they are so far off-base that it is useless to address them... kinda like it would be useless for Obama to "produce his birth certificate".

Your disdain comes through quite loudly, so I suggest you look into the possibility that this is a grand case of PROJECTION.

[Bluerthanblue]

11. because on sides with the Libyan people's right to not be slaughtered doesn't make

them "war-mongers" either.

There has been enough shit slung on this board and attempts to claim the moral high ground, to last an eternity.

Most people take their stance based on their "morals". It's natural to view our own stance as the correct one- otherwise we wouldn't hold it. That doesn't give anyone the moral high ground- and all the claims to "have" that or accusations of "trying to take" it don't change a thing.

Who is 'right' or 'moral'? The answer to that depends on who is answering the question.

If you are interested in communal discourse, and really don't take one side over another, I hope you respond to those who cry "war-monger" and claim that people only support this action because of "Obama" to task as well.

:hi:

edited to take out an extra "on"

[Rabblevox]

3. "It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood"...excuse me while I vomit.../nt

[Bluerthanblue]

12. a question for YOU-

What would YOU have "us" do?

Sit back and watch?

Posture and proclaim our unwillingness to take a side because it might not be to our advantage in the long run?

Pat ourselves on the back for not getting involved?

Turn away because "it's not my job man?"

What solution would YOU have offered to this situation?

[PurityOfEssence]

13. I don't have a glib answer, but I'd do something like this:

When the rebels mounted a military campaign and took more and more territory, we saw perfectly fit to sit by. When Qaddafi surprised many people by the quick success, suddenly the fear gripped us that there'd be hell to pay from him if he put down the rebellion, so we were somewhat forced into either backing the rebels and helping them win, or risk losing all that oil.

His blustering and bravado about killing everyone may or may not have come into play, and we may never really know. There were demonstrations in Tripoli, and he didn't go door to door wiping out everyone in some Pol Pot pandemonium when regaining control. That shoots some holes in the ABSOLUTE FACT claims that he would. It's the rebels presumption that he WOULD go on a rampage against uninvolved civilians, and it's not fact.

He's a well documented liar and blusterer, and the same people who claim what a liar he is cite only his words as proof of what he'd do. He's a liar, so that prooves you can trust his word about what we want you to think.

When one enters open rebellion, declares a government and takes territory and property, one owes it one's movement--and the REAL bystanders--to have a chance of success. It looks like they overreached, and no, I don't take the scoffing conservative tack of saying that they had it coming to them, but they put a lot of TRULY innocent people at risk, and now they're depending on us to pull their proverbial chestnuts from the fire. They also threatened the world community with cutting off oil to those who didn't rush to their aid, so they're hardly above reproach.

Back to what I would have done: I would have strongly worded a UN demand that he specifically guarantee the safety of TRUE innocent civilians and allow monitors into the war zone to confirm that their rights were protected. I would not have put an arms embargo on Qaddafi OR the rebels, but I would have warned all other countries against intervention and sought a UN Resolution to set trigger events that would warrant an armed intervention. Once I got the Resolution, I would have started readying forces and informed Qaddafi of it. As President, I would have called leaders of Congress to a private meeting to discuss these procedures, and asked for an Authorization pursuant to the War Powers Act with the specific triggering points delineated ahead of time, and the specifics of military involvement delineated rather specifically, and I would have asked for the authorization for ground forces as well. I would have organized the logistics and staged the troops before asking for Authorization in order to not lose the initiative, and would have had A FUCKING REAL PLAN TO SPECIFICALLY DO SOMETHING, be it regime change, peacekeeping or whatever.

I would NOT have acted without consulting Congress and seeking an Authorization, and that is my principal problem with the whole thing: the flagrant disregard for law ESPECIALLY where WAR is concerned.

You put me on the spot and I'm responding very quickly to something I literally have not thought about at all, but out of respect for the sincerity of the concern for civilians that drives much of the support for this WAR, you deserve a sincere attempt at an answer.

There are other things that can be done, and if civilians are the true issue, there are ways they can be at least somewhat protected. They're at risk now with our actions and the actions of Qaddafi's troops AND the rebels. Where is the outcry against the rebels for not evacuating Benghazi when they KNEW Qaddafi was driving right there to retake it by force? There are other towns in Cyrenaica; it's not like they would have been thrown out in the desert. Is that not a use of human shields? Doesn't that make the rebels pretty cynical, too? There are certainly civilians who don't want to be involved; historically, there are usually great numbers of people who don't.

It's not so simple, and some of our actions are reckless and self-serving.

I would NOT have treated the U.S. Military as my personal enforcers.