We're now three weeks in to the Libya intervention. Anyone changed their minds about it yet (in either direction)? Whether you have or not, so far do you think it's going well? Badly? Are you more confident of things working out okay, less, or no change? More confident of Barack Obama's judgement in foreign affairs, less, or no change?
Anonymous....
ReplyDeleteI think he said we would be in the lead for the first few days. That is absolutely true. We're not bombing anymore. All we're doing is intelligence, refueling and providing landing area for the planes. That's it.
all good men and women ignore comments posted by anon y mouse
ReplyDeleteYeah, "Steve" is totally not anonymous. Don't know very many of them.
ReplyDeleteAgainst it then, still against it now; going badly, although not as badly as I feared; no change in confidence in the operation's success; less confidence in Obama's judgment.
ReplyDeleteThe rebels are relying on U.S. military assistance to control 1/3 of Libya, leaving 2/3 to Qaddafi. That qualifies as going badly.
ReplyDeleteThree weeks ago, I hoped we had good plans for Libyan governance, with people we'd like to see in charge. I haven't heard of such plans or people, so I'm less confident of things working out okay.
I am less confident of Obama's judgment in foreign affairs than I was before.
What real options did we have in regards to Libya?
ReplyDeleteIn light of Iraq and Afghanistan exactly how should we define "going well?" and or "badly?"
If its any consolation, its actually 1/3 controlled by Qaddafi, 1/3 by rebels and the other 1/3 is just desert...
Since I get most of my international news from the Guardian, I don’t actually see the Libyan intervention an especially American thing, so it really doesn’t affect my views of Obama much at all.
ReplyDeletethe more interesting question: "given the situation obama faced in libya, what would you have done?" actually, that's the only question…
ReplyDeleteFor me, no change. I expect all such interventions to go badly. All these years later, Bosnia is still a mess.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that across all the administrations, the one relatively constant thing since WWII has been foreign policy. Obama is not much different from Bush. I'll posit that President Gore would never have invaded Iraq, but beyond that single Bushian anomaly, who is in the White House seems to not affect these decisions very much.
Or am I all wet?
JzB
I was feeling pretty good then, and I still am now. We went from rebels nearly being crushed, with massacres impending in Benghazi and other cities that would probably kill thousands if not tens of thousands, to rebel control of a good portion of the country.
ReplyDeleteIn the next couple months, rebels + international air support have a pretty good shot of taking a few more cities, and convincing Gadhafi's inner circle that there's not a whole lot to gain in standing behind him. That's the endgame.
The guy I've been looking to for guidance on this issue is Juan Cole, who knows more about the region than the vast majority of commentators and was an intense opponent of the Iraq War. So far, I feel that he's steered me right.
We're cutting spending in America despite 9% unemployment and yet we're spending hundreds of millions and all too soon billions of dollars to drop bombs on Libya... to what end? This is insanity. Just stop it.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get too unhappy about expenditures on Libya -- that war hardly costs anything compared to Afghanistan. The pointless expenditures on Afghanistan remain the appropriate target of fury.
ReplyDelete