President Obama on Operations in Libya, 28 March 2011
President Obama on Operations in Libya, 28 March 2011
Entry Excerpt:
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Man, this guy is something else...
For a ditherer he presents himself (and the American people) as a reluctant hero:
Quote:
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. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
So far so good - even if he had to be shamed into taking this noble position. He then goes and spoils it all with this:
Quote:
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.
This is of course code to let the Tibetans and the Georgians (among others) know that they are on their own whatever happens (like the Hungarians in 1956).
I'm left wondering why most Americans can't understand how the actions of successive governments are not seen "liberating" but rather than of the school yard bully. Until the US can demonstrate its ability to stand up to the big boys the world view of the US will remain the same.
The American people deserve better... leadership that is.
Oh yes... and now we have heard it chapter and verse from the US President himself can we assume this is the "official" US position representing an action taken in the US interests... or are we going to have a number of posts with the use of "we" as posters claim to speak on behalf of the American people?
On Libya, Obama avoids George W., but becomes George H.W.
On Libya, Obama avoids George W., but becomes George H.W.
Entry Excerpt:
In his speech last evening at the National Defense University, President Obama explained the humanitarian impulse and the defense of America’s values and interests that led him to intervene in Libya’s civil war. Obama gave a passionate explanation of why he acted in Libya. But he failed to convincingly explain how his Libya policy will work in the future and why it will achieve success. Obama explicitly promised that his Libya policy will not turn into President George W. Bush’s policy for Iraq. Instead, Obama’s Libya policy is mimicking almost step-for-step the other Bush policy for Iraq, that of George H.W. Bush.
In my March 4, 2011 column at Foreign Policy, I first drew the comparison between the Obama administration’s handling of Libya and the situation in Iraq 20 years ago, just after Kuwait’s liberation from Saddam Hussein’s forces. Events in Libya since then and Obama’s speech last night have only reinforced the comparison.
Click below to read more ...
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Libya: war or humanitarian intervention?
Mary Kaldor has long argued for a better strategy to advance human security and the mismatch between conventional Western military capabilities.
Sub-titled:
Quote:
In the end the prospects for democracy depend on whether the rebels can mobilise support politically throughout Libya. The problem with the military approach is that it entrenches division. Our preoccupation with classic military means is undermining our capacity to address growing insecurity.
I can follow the argument, but it does jar when she writes;
Quote:
..quite apart from the cost of such equipment, time and again our knee jerk reaction to crisis is air strikes because that is what we have the capability to do.
As for 'safe havens' in Libya, I cannot see anyone wanting to place 'boots on the ground'.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/mary-ka...n-intervention