ext_87779 ([identity profile] okmewriting.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2011-03-30 05:18 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Obama Signals willingness to arm Rebels

On a day when opposition forces in Libya suffered battlefield losses, President Barack Obama made clear in interviews Tuesday with the three major U.S. television networks that he was open to arming the rebel fighters.

"I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not ruling it in," Obama told NBC in one of the separate interviews he gave the day after a nationally televised speech on the Libya situation.

"I think it's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could," Obama told ABC. "We're looking at all our options at this point."
More here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/29/obama.libya.interviews/

I have four thoughts on this:

1) The reason he's not ruling it out is because the American's are probably arming them through their subsidiaries. The Egyptians have been shipping weapons over the border with the full knowledge (and support one assumes) of the Americans.

2) How does arming the rebels protect civilians? Particularly those civilians who may well be opposed to the rebels actions?

3) Do the American's (and the Brits & the French) even know exactly who these rebels are? And then I found this article: Amid Rebels, 'Flickers' of al Qaeda

4) Have the American's (and the Brits & the French) learned nothing from Afghanistan?

Maybe someone can explain to me how it is a good idea to arm the rebels? Because I can't see how this is a good idea.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] box-in-the-box.livejournal.com 2011-03-30 05:25 pm (UTC)(link)
The fact that we're not acting unilaterally, and we're being invited to step in, doesn't change the fact that a) this is a war or choice rather than a war of necessity, b) this is yet another in a long line of wars being entered into without Congressional approval, which I'd expect better from a usually fairly ethical Constitutional law scholar than Obama to try and justify, and c) this is a war that we're sending yet more troops to fight in when our previous two un-Constitutional wars of choice have already profoundly fucked up their morale and readiness and resources and ability to do their goddamn jobs. Even if everyone's motives for entering into this were entirely pure, it would STILL be a BAD war for those reasons ALONE. It's amazing how both Democrats and Republicans object to the United States playing Globocop until one of their own is in the White House. Libya does not have to be exactly the same as Iraq in order for you to recognize that this is a terrible idea, no matter HOW many good intentions are behind it.

American men and women are going to DIE here. Do any of you little armchair generals get that? I'd be very curious to know how many of you who feel so strongly about the urgency of us entering into this fray have worn uniforms yourselves, much less interviewed the families of servicemembers who have been killed in action as part of our "War On Terror." Because just in the two sleepy little small towns covered by my newspapers, I've already conducted too goddamned many of those interviews. While the rest of you are rushing to support an un-Constitutional war of choice that it's not feasible to prosecute for any extended length of time, simply because it suits your lofty ideals, all I see are more dead 20-year-olds' photos on caskets and their crying mothers losing their shit while their dads completely shut down emotionally and do thousand-yard zombie stares. So you'll excuse me very fucking much if I commit the gross sin of "making this extremely personal," which [livejournal.com profile] telemann treated as though it was a fucking DEFECT of character.

[identity profile] okmewriting.livejournal.com 2011-03-30 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)
Completely agree. War should be about necessity, not choice. And if you are going to get into wars of choice then you better have a clearly defined exit strategy BEFORE you go in. Sadly the little boys playing with their toy soldiers don't seem to be thinking these are real live men and women they are sending out to possibly die. They have no respect for the lives of the men and women in their armed services, never mind the people in the countries they've gone to save. War seems to be the default option, not the last last last last resort.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2011-03-30 09:05 pm (UTC)(link)
Definitely. Wars never just affect one side. For the sake of both sides the leaders should either have it as a last resort, or carefully plan things and stick to those plans, like Bush Sr. did in 1991. Going into war half-cocked and without plans is what makes its atrocities far, far worse than they have to be, and far, far longer and more terrible than they need be.

Those are all undeniably horrible and saddening.

[identity profile] squidb0i.livejournal.com 2011-03-31 03:53 pm (UTC)(link)

But this simply isn't that kind of conflict.

We've been lobbing cruise missiles and flying sorties to turn cheap Soviet surplus armor into burning slag. Which has been so successful that the Gadhafi loyalist troops are now abandoning their armor and using HiLux trucks like the rebels.

And now NATO has officially taken over command and control.

No US service person is kicking doors, unjamming sand-filled MK19's in the middle of firefights, or being turned into carpaccio by IED's.

The Libyans have made it very clear they don't want foreign boots on the ground. The UN specifically excluded the option from their resolution. There is no popular support for it, anywhere.

The only political wills pushing for it in the US are wingnut hawks like grandpa McCain, who can't seem to get enough American blood into foreign soil.

It just isn't going to happen.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only