For Better For Worse

Look, I get it.  Some of us are okay with military action in order to protect our interests.  Others, not so much.

Some folks would like the US to lead in International affairs.  Again, others would rather we took a more passive role and involve ourselves only insomuch as we are part of a larger coalition.

Be that as it may, we are seeing, and will continue to see, how a world reacts with America acting as a partner, not a leader.

As an aside, I am curious.  Can anyone describe the substantial difference in Libya breaking one single UN resolution that makes force okay while Iraq breaking multiple UN resolutions did not justify force?

14 responses to “For Better For Worse

  1. “Can anyone describe the substantial difference in Libya breaking one single UN resolution that makes force okay while Iraq breaking multiple UN resolutions did not justify force?”
    I’m sure there will be many opinions on that one. Perhaps since the US is not committing ground troops it won’t be considered an “invasion”. Perhaps it’s because the words “Libya” and “oilfields” aren’t always mentioned in the same sentence and the VP’s not directly tied to an oil company (emphasis on “directly”).

    All I say is that all those Middle East dictators are nuts, and if they give us an excuse to go in there with military force where we also have a financial interest at stake then they deserve what comes to them.

    • Perhaps since

      I’m a cynic. But I think it’s …

      Perhaps since our current President has a (D) behind his name.

      if they give us an excuse to go in there with military force where we also have a financial interest at stake then they deserve what comes to them.

      Personally I agree. However, I admit defeat and yield to the vocal Left. I am tired of wars that the Nation doesn’t support.

      • Personally I agree. However, I admit defeat and yield to the vocal Left. I am tired of wars that the Nation doesn’t support.
        Tired as well. War should be a last resort, so I share much of the far left’s anti-war reasoning, but I can’t go as far as yielding to them. To appease their own personal guilt they continue to insist on ridiculous and dangerous ROE’s, and express more sympathy and understanding for the enemy rather than our own troops. If we have to go in there, then let’s not send our people in there with one arm tied behind their back.

        As for the Nation not supporting them, we have people living in comfort with no care or concern regarding how that comfort was given to them. These people will always be the loudest voices on the left.

  2. First, the UN Security Council authorized this action, in 2003 the US was leading a force in defiance of the Security Council — that’s why so much political damage accrued when the war didn’t go as planned.

    I think it’s good that: a) the US wouldn’t act without the UN acting — Obama is more like Bush the Elder here than Bush the Younger –; and b) that the Europeans are taking the lead and the US is playing a (significant) support role. The military is overstretched and it simply is not in the US interest to put a lot on the line in Libya. Perhaps here we’re seeing the UN reverting to what President Bush the Elder was hoping for in 1991, before Presidents Clinton and Bush the Younger decided the US could act more or less unilaterally.

    • First, the UN Security Council authorized this action, in 2003 the US was leading a force in defiance of the Security Council

      While the UN authorized this force explicitly, I think that 678 is clear in the use of of force.

      I think it’s good that: a) the US wouldn’t act without the UN acting

      I agree.

      I think it’s good that: b) that the Europeans are taking the lead and the US is playing a (significant) support role.

      I think THAT is hilarious. To think that France is leading anything related to a military offensive is a study in contradiction.

      The old joke:

      I was searching for rifles on E-bay. I found an entry for French Rifles:

      USED FRENCH RIFLES – Never fired; dropped once.

      The military is overstretched and it simply is not in the US interest to put a lot on the line in Libya.

      I agree. However, the irony that Obama trades in emotion regarding the rebels rather than strict national security issues is delicious.

  3. I think the UN can’t make up it’s mind whether it is the UN of the 1940s- 1950s that followed the US into a difficult, but ultimately successful war in Korea. Or is it the League of Nations of the 1930s that talked a good game yet did nothing when Imperial Japan was conquering China, when Fascist Italy was conquering Ethiopia, when Germany and Italy intervened in Spain, or when Germany rolled into Czechoslovakia.

    It is apparently not the UN of the 1990s that traded oil for food with Saddam and screwed the US when Bush was trying to build a coalition prior to invading Iraq .

    • It is apparently not the UN of the 1990s that traded oil for food with Saddam and screwed the US when Bush was trying to build a coalition prior to invading Iraq .

      Well, it certainly is interesting to see how the world reacts when a nation NOT America is leading. Perhaps that is our larger lesson.

  4. pino,

    You either lead or follow. Part of the difference is that France is no longer lead by weak leaders . The US is lead by a weak leader . So France and Great Britain set the agenda .

    I just wonder if this coalition will be judged on the same standards as when Bush was leading . You have a Muslim country that did not attack us, yet we have committed war acts against them . By the standards that Bush was judged, shouldn’t Canadian Prime Minister Harper, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and American President Obama be tried for war crimes ? Wait was it the Iraq war or waterboarding that made Bush a war criminal ?

    Nobody died of water boarding so that is definitely a war crime .

    • I just wonder if this coalition will be judged on the same standards as when Bush was leading .

      It appears the answer is yes:

      CAIRO (AP) — The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.

      The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

      Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.

      Moussa has told reporters Sunday that “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives.” He says “what we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.”

  5. “what we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.”

    Really Arab League guy?
    Us: Soldiers and cops who step in between bullets and civilians.
    You guys: Solders and cops who put civilians in between themselves and the bullets.

    Funny that the countries with the most brutal records for human rights and living conditions are lecturing us on public safety. They’ve done worse to their people when not in a war than we’ve ever done to them when we’re in one.

  6. pino,

    ” The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths. ”

    They had one of those former generals on TV and he said the Arabs are always like that . They say one thing behind closed doors and then get in front of a microphone and stab you in the back .

  7. Don’t forget, Gaddafi’s forces were slaughtering citizens and poised to attack Benghazi promising “no mercy, no pity.” Canadian Senator Romeo Dallaire, who led the failed UN mission in Rwanda and pleaded for help to stop that genocide said he saw parallels between Libya and Rwanda. So there are a lot of differences. I think Obama played this smartly — there is no reason for the US to take the lead rhetorically or in theatrics. That’s not real leadership anyway, anyone can talk tough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *