Operation Odyssey Dawn Underway

[93henfan]

I'm not sure why you guys get all philosophical about this stuff. There's a quick test that always works when deciding if the President made the right move.

Did 93henfan's 401k go up in value since bombs started dropping?

Yes. Yes it did.

Good move Obama.

[Rob Iola]

Clinton's on the right?

the neocon right was a hell of a lot louder than Hillary and Bill. which is not to suggest they weren't pushing for it - because they were.

OK, so I'll agree with you on everything you just said.

Obama got pushed into a war, er, "military action" by the neocon right. In other words, he's letting Rush/Beck/Hannity/etc. dictate foreign policy based on a political calculation.

His goal is simple "Gaddafi must go" - in other words, regime change. Gaddafi doesn't seem to be getting the message. Quagmire or quit appear to be the options.

So am I missing something here? And if not, how can you defend his actions?

But that's kind of unfair - here's the opportunity as I see it - he works with NATO leaders to work out an exile solution for Gaddafi and a replacement government cobbled together from the Libyan tribes that still holds the nation together with enough cohesion to not destabilize the region (and more importantly to keep the oil flowing). Bonus points for doing this in such a way that brings pressure on Chavez to worry about what his next steps are when his country's economy implodes under his nationalization policies, pressure on other governments in the region to work with their protestors to cobble out a more free/transparent working government, and possibly even pressure on Iran to stop being total assholes. Even 1 out of 4 of these would be qood outcome, as long as we don't get bogged down there.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

the neocon right was a hell of a lot louder than Hillary and Bill. which is not to suggest they weren't pushing for it - because they were.

OK, so I'll agree with you on everything you just said.

Obama got pushed into a war, er, "military action" by the neocon right. In other words, he's letting Rush/Beck/Hannity/etc. dictate foreign policy based on a political calculation.

His goal is simple "Gaddafi must go" - in other words, regime change. Gaddafi doesn't seem to be getting the message. Quagmire or quit appear to be the options.

So am I missing something here? And if not, how can you defend his actions?

But that's kind of unfair - here's the opportunity as I see it - he works with NATO leaders to work out an exile solution for Gaddafi and a replacement government cobbled together from the Libyan tribes that still holds the nation together with enough cohesion to not destabilize the region (and more importantly to keep the oil flowing). Bonus points for doing this in such a way that brings pressure on Chavez to worry about what his next steps are when his country's economy implodes under his nationalization policies, pressure on other governments in the region to work with their protestors to cobble out a more free/transparent working government, and possibly even pressure on Iran to stop being total assholes. Even 1 out of 4 of these would be qood outcome, as long as we don't get bogged down there.

1. i suggested nothing of the sort.
2. wasn't defending any actions so much as pointing out where the calls for action were coming from
3. as for a way out... the solution you presented are about as good as i've heard...

the point i was making was simply that there weren't a lot of options... and even the ones there were weren't good.

[houndawg]

Dovish Presidents have always felt pressure to use the military to avoid criticism they are soft, just as hawkish Presidents have felt pressure not to use the military to avoid criticism that they are war mongers. Its the nature of the beast. The art of foreign policy is knowing when to do what will advance American interests and world peace, not to either seek or avoid conflict to bolster ones image or to avoid criticism.

So..you mean not to shoot from the hip, lead with the balls, or say stuff like, "wanted, dead or alive?"

That's different, he was a "War President".

[houndawg]

the neocon right was a hell of a lot louder than Hillary and Bill. which is not to suggest they weren't pushing for it - because they were.

OK, so I'll agree with you on everything you just said.

Obama got pushed into a war, er, "military action" by the neocon right. In other words, he's letting Rush/Beck/Hannity/etc. dictate foreign policy based on a political calculation.

His goal is simple "Gaddafi must go" - in other words, regime change. Gaddafi doesn't seem to be getting the message. Quagmire or quit appear to be the options.

So am I missing something here? And if not, how can you defend his actions?

But that's kind of unfair - here's the opportunity as I see it - he works with NATO leaders to work out an exile solution for Gaddafi and a replacement government cobbled together from the Libyan tribes that still holds the nation together with enough cohesion to not destabilize the region (and more importantly to keep the oil flowing). Bonus points for doing this in such a way that brings pressure on Chavez to worry about what his next steps are when his country's economy implodes under his nationalization policies, pressure on other governments in the region to work with their protestors to cobble out a more free/transparent working government, and possibly even pressure on Iran to stop being total *******. Even 1 out of 4 of these would be qood outcome, as long as we don't get bogged down there.

Yes. Who gets the oil?

[citdog]

if only some freedom loving Nation could have loosed some cruise missles on the butcher grant or sherman the war criminal.

[Rob Iola]

OK, so I'll agree with you on everything you just said.

Obama got pushed into a war, er, "military action" by the neocon right. In other words, he's letting Rush/Beck/Hannity/etc. dictate foreign policy based on a political calculation.

His goal is simple "Gaddafi must go" - in other words, regime change. Gaddafi doesn't seem to be getting the message. Quagmire or quit appear to be the options.

So am I missing something here? And if not, how can you defend his actions?

But that's kind of unfair - here's the opportunity as I see it - he works with NATO leaders to work out an exile solution for Gaddafi and a replacement government cobbled together from the Libyan tribes that still holds the nation together with enough cohesion to not destabilize the region (and more importantly to keep the oil flowing). Bonus points for doing this in such a way that brings pressure on Chavez to worry about what his next steps are when his country's economy implodes under his nationalization policies, pressure on other governments in the region to work with their protestors to cobble out a more free/transparent working government, and possibly even pressure on Iran to stop being total *******. Even 1 out of 4 of these would be qood outcome, as long as we don't get bogged down there.

Yes. Who gets the oil?

Not sure exactly where the Libyan oil goes to, but eventually it frees up enough supply to keep our cars and industry going, no?

And let's not be naive here - right now we need the world's economy to stay in somewhat stable shape, and oil kinda greases those wheels, so to speak.

But $5/gallon gas here we come, and along with it economically-viable solar energy...

[OL FU]

Clinton's on the right?

the neocon right was a hell of a lot louder than Hillary and Bill. which is not to suggest they weren't pushing for it - because they were.

Do you think Obama subscribes to the Weekly Standard God I hope not

[Bronco]

Jon Stewart has a funny video take on Odyssey dawn



http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-m ... tional-war" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

Yes. Who gets the oil?

Not sure exactly where the Libyan oil goes to, but eventually it frees up enough supply to keep our cars and industry going, no?

And let's not be naive here - right now we need the world's economy to stay in somewhat stable shape, and oil kinda greases those wheels, so to speak.

But $5/gallon gas here we come, and along with it economically-viable solar energy...

Europe - France/UK/Italy. Why do you think they are supporting THIS.

[GannonFan]

if only some freedom loving Nation could have loosed some cruise missles on the butcher grant or sherman the war criminal.

Typical of the South - they simply shot their wad too early. Should've held on for another 150 years before trying to seceede.

[CID1990]

if only some freedom loving Nation could have loosed some cruise missles on the butcher grant or sherman the war criminal.

Typical of the South - they simply shot their wad too early. Should've held on for another 150 years before trying to seceede.

Truth in your statement. We'd be recognized by half the world's nations before Obama could decide whether or not to have a meeting to discuss the possibility of considering a small mobilization. After giving a couple speeches.

[Ivytalk]

Odyssey Dawn? Sounds like a Seventh-Avenue hooker!

[native]

Typical of the South - they simply shot their wad too early. Should've held on for another 150 years before trying to seceede.

Truth in your statement. We'd be recognized by half the world's nations before Obama could decide whether or not to have a meeting to discuss the possibility of considering a small mobilization. After giving a couple speeches.

...after giving a couple of ineffective and confusing speeches with conflicting themes, neither of which established a clear strategic vision, moral clarity, or roadmap to victory.

[BDKJMU]

Lowest Approval of Any GALLUP-Polled Military Action:


While Gallup did not ask an approve/disapprove question about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, support for that action was also high, based on other question wordings."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Ameri ... Libya.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grizalltheway]

Lowest Approval of Any GALLUP-Polled Military Action:


While Gallup did not ask an approve/disapprove question about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, support for that action was also high, based on other question wordings."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Ameri ... Libya.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would love to see the numbers for Iraq II circa 2006..

[LeadBolt]

Lowest Approval of Any GALLUP-Polled Military Action:


While Gallup did not ask an approve/disapprove question about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, support for that action was also high, based on other question wordings."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Ameri ... Libya.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd have to give these issues an Oldsmobile rating 4-4-2

[native]

He is a pussy when it comes to foreign policy - bombing the **** out of Libya ain't gonna change that. Everytime he defers to another world leader he dimishes US influence. His influence here should've been to logically state that this is a tribal issue (which it is), there are no WMDs involved, so sad as it may be there's not much that we can do. See Bush, GW on how to properly influence this outcome...

This is straight out of the Republican play book...
but it's still a good post (enjoyable)

And, as I suspect you will admit, Cleets, there exists a bit of relevant truth in the Republican playbook.

I interpret one of your chief criticisms of Bush in Iraq to be that he made things worse. I respect that opinion, and I too subscribe to the dictum, "do no harm."

However, I would argue that the jury is still out on Iraq and note the millions of Iraqis with ink stains on their fingers. Even among Sunnis there is no consensus that the bad old days under Saddam Hussein were better than today.

The jury is still out on Libya and Afghanistan, too, but leading a combat operation into Libya as a knee jerk reaction, while eschewing leadership, without a succession plan or any clear plan or definition of victory, invites the likelihood of making things a great deal worse. Witness current European squabbling:

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/201103 ... tervention" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The idea of handing off "leadership" of the Libyan operation to the Europeans without having arranged to do so in advance, before jumping into combat operations, exhibits incomprehensible irresponsibility and breathtaking incompetence. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the intervention, Obama's willful ineptitude will consign his Presidency to a historical record of gross failure.