An "Exit Strategy"

[Andrew D]

Exactly. Which is why this:

I can just imagine FDR and Eisenhower being asked by the contemporary crop of "journalists" what our "exit strategy" was when we landed on the beaches of Normandy....

"Well, our 'exit strategy' is to march in to Berlin..."

is such a silly comparison.

Of course there wasn't a lot of discussion of exit strategy in World War II: Everyone knew that it was all-out war, so there wasn't a whole lot to discuss.

So is it all-out war in Libya? Is it really "Well, our 'exit strategy' is to march into Tripoli"?

That sure isn't what the Obama people are saying.

Then again, maybe what they're saying isn't exactly what we're doing. Wouldn't be the first time.

[rubato]

"... Why Lybia rather than Sudan or Cote D'Ivoire or Congo? What policy goals distinguish this conflict from others?

I'm shocked that you have to ask.

Libya is close to and very important to our European allies as a source of light sweet crude. Libya is between Egypt and Tunisia which are undergoing radical changes of government. Libya borders the Mediterranean Sea and large populations from across Africa and emigrated there to work who will be refugees. Refugees from Libya will inevitably flow into Europe or into countries important to Europe and create economic hardships on all. France, and many other countries have a long history with Libya, extensive contacts, and a deeper knowledge of Libyan society and history than we do.

Countries which are smaller, where trade is less critical, where our ability to intervene is less we will do less. Obama is wise not to be drawn into generalizing where it is impossible.

While I would like for him to have said more about the justification Obama was clear enough about what we were doing and how it was limited. "Ownership" of the mission is being transferred to Europe so you should address questions about "what if" to them. But I don't think a sensible person could expect to answer all "what if" questions when there is great uncertainty about what will happen next.

It is inevitable that no matter what happens in Libya we will be effected by it. We cannot build a dome over it and seal it off from the rest of the world. The human species is interdependent and pretending otherwise is foolish.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Libya is close to and very important to our European allies as a source of light sweet crude.

Bingo. This one reason/excuse far outweighs all the other put together, as it did in Iraq. Despite what Obama said,we don't give a damn about the people of Libya anymore than we do about the people of Sudan, the congo, or Cote d'Ivoire; but we care a great del about the petroleum.

Blood for oil; where did I hear that before?

[Sue U]

I think that's spelled "delicious oil."

[Big RR]

Delicious, but costly in many more ways than one.

[Crackpot]

THen it would make more sense to back Kadaffi / Or leave it alone.

[Big RR]

Nah, didn't Kadhaffi threaten to torch the oil fields if he was losing? And might the rebels not do the same if they were? Wehe have to protect our vital interests.

[loCAtek]

All those places have oil.

[Sue U]

If our involvement in Lybia is to protect European access to a source of oil, then Obama should just say that and we can 1) have a genuine debate as to whether that's something worth committing our blood and treasure to, and 2) look to see if our involvement is effective in obtaining that objective. If that is not sufficient motivation for the American people to sign on to this adventure, then perhaps the administration should be reconsidering whether we should be involved in the first place.

[Big RR]

All those places have oil.

True, but not like Libya--the reserves there are the largest in Africa, and 8th or 9th largest in the world.

[Andrew D]

While I would like for him to have said more about the justification Obama was clear enough about what we were doing and how it was limited. "Ownership" of the mission is being transferred to Europe so you should address questions about "what if" to them.

And while the left hand waves and brightly glitters, drawing our attention, the right hand slips quietly under the table ...

The CIA has sent more than a dozen covert operatives to Libya as part of an escalating U.S. effort to vet the rebels working to oust Libyan strongman Muammar el-Qaddafi and lay the groundwork for funneling American aid to the insurgents, according to a person with direct knowledge of the CIA operations there.

The CIA’s deployment to Libya, which is virtually certain to expand in the coming days, comes amid word that President Obama has authorized U.S. intelligence agencies to provide direct assistance to the Libyan rebels. There are no U.S. military personnel on the ground in Libya yet, though the United Kingdom, America’s closest battlefield ally, has several dozen Special Air Service commandoes and M16 agents already operating there. News of the CIA deployments to Libya was first reported by The New York Times and then independently confirmed by National Journal.

* * *

But with the administration openly considering direct assistance to Libya's rebels, the administration appears to have decided that it needed to get CIA operatives into position there to make contact with Libya's disparate insurgents and begin orchestrating the logistics of providing weaponry, money, and other forms of aid to the fighters.

* * *

The CIA personnel are thought to have deployed to Libya after Obama signed a Presidential Finding authorizing American intelligence agencies to provide aid to the rebels. It's not known whether the finding covers weaponry and armaments or is limited to money, communication gear, and other forms of non-lethal assistance. News of the classified authorization was first reported by Reuters.

* * *

The Presidential Finding would not necessarily permit the insertion of special forces troops, but a broader national-security decision directive, which could also be classified, would.

* * *

Responding to reports of the finding, Carney issued a statement saying that he would not "comment on intelligence matters," but added that "no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya. We’re not ruling it out or ruling it in. We’re assessing and reviewing options for all types of assistance that we could provide to the Libyan people, and have consulted directly with the opposition and our international partners about these matters."

Buckle up, kids. It's going to be a long ride ....

[rubato]

The fallacy here is in thinking that if we do nothing in Libya that we are not embroiled in the aftermath; whatever it is and for however long it takes.

There is no null option here. Try and grasp that.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Libya is close to and very important to our European allies as a source of light sweet crude.

Bingo. This one reason/excuse far outweighs all the other put together, as it did in Iraq. Despite what Obama said,we don't give a damn about the people of Libya anymore than we do about the people of Sudan, the congo, or Cote d'Ivoire; but we care a great del about the petroleum.

Blood for oil; where did I hear that before?

Caring about a resource which effects the lives and std of living of hundreds of millions of people is a humanitarian concern whether you can grasp this fact or not.

I don't know about you, personally, but I do care about the people of those places and support policies which reflect that fact. While there is a significant 'bandwidth' issue, most people are most concerned with their own immediate needs especially when those needs are most acute, I think this is true of many Americans who have the time and leisure to learn something about it. Possibly most.


yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONR WITH RUBATO!!!!!






I've been agreeing with you entirely too much lately.

[rubato]

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONR WITH RUBATO!!!!!

I've been agreeing with you entirely too much lately.

I'm guessing its a brain tumor (yours), the wrong drugs (you again and I don't know why you can't find better ones in this best of all possible worlds) or you've suddenly gotten smarter.

No way to tell.

I'd try changing the drugs first.

Have you tried Old Stock Ale? Very nice.



Solves nothing, but you feel a lot better about everything. Can't be bad for you then, can it?

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Caring about a resource which effects the lives and std of living of hundreds of millions of people is a humanitarian concern whether you can grasp this fact or not.

Well then just count me as someone who cannot grasp that getting control of oil for our own use is acting in a humanitarian way. It may make some people more comfortable, but at the cost of untold numbers of lives. If you choose to view squandering lives on a resource we seek to control is acting as humanitarians, be my guest.

[Crackpot]

How are we getting control of oil here? and as for the supply to Europe what the hell do you think that Gaddaffi will sudden'y stop selling to them? Not fucking likely. how else would he fund his regime?

Any way you slice it oil is just not a major player in this conflict.

[rubato]

"...
Well then just count me as someone who cannot grasp that getting control of oil for our own use is acting in a humanitarian way. It may make some people more comfortable, but at the cost of untold numbers of lives. If you choose to view squandering lives on a resource we seek to control is acting as humanitarians, be my guest.

Perhaps you should ask who actually uses Libyan oil?

Not so much us, as the EU. Maybe this is why Obama is shifting the majority of the effort to them? And our intervention so far appears to be reducing the loss of life on the part of the Libyan citizens at a minimal cost to us.


Libya is not even a top 15 source of oil for the US:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

While it is the 3rd largest supplier to the EU after Russia and Norway:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/ ... -01-08.pdf

And as I said before their proximity and greater shared history make Libya more important to France, for the leading example, than it is to us.

Claiming that Obama is 'going to war in Libya to control their oil' is uninformed.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Crackpot--Khadaffi threatened to burn all the oil fields rather than let the rebels get control of them, and you think this threat didn't factor into the decision in a major way?

rubato--so is fighting for control oil resources a humanitarian act or not? Clearly the oil and its continued supply is important to our allies, and it also important because it is such a large proportion of reserves in the world. You are right, we don't get much oil from Libya but it is an important supplier throughout the world. Right now the petroleum market is going crazy because of the uncertainty, and if even a significant percentage of the reserves were lost, it would be a difficult economic blow for us to deal with, especially with the lethargic recovery we are now going through. I can see an economic justification for the fight, but think calling it a humanitarian effort is a smokescreen. And if that is the reason we re going to war, Obama should level with Congress and the people, and see if there is support for it.

As for "reducing loss of life on the part of Libyan people", I don't buy it. If we cared about the Libyan people we would have an objective of securing them (most likely by supporting regime change) and a plan to achieve that. Obama has said hat regime change is not our objective so what is, to say until our primary objective (protecting the oil supply) is achieved and then leave the people to him. We did that during Gulf War 1, when Bush Sr pulled out after we stabilized the Kuwaiti oil supply by forcing the Iraq army out and then withdrew; not necessarily bad since that was our objective, but hardly a way to protect the Iraqi people (especially those who collaborated with us) from a brutal dictator. I don't see what we're doing as having any real chance of reducing the loss of life; delaying it, perhaps, but not really stopping anything.

Ignoring this and accepting the administration's smokescreen as real is what is uninformed.

[Sue U]

"France, and many other countries have a long history with Libya, extensive contacts, and a deeper knowledge of Libyan society and history than we do.

And as I said before their proximity and greater shared history make Libya more important to France, for the leading example, than it is to us.

I don't know why you keep bringing France into this, they have been periodically at war with Libya (through Chad) for the last 30+ years. Their "long history" consists primarily of trying to kill each other. America (i.e. American business) has plenty of history itself with Libya; see Amerada Hess, Conoco Phillips, Marathon Oil, ExxonMobil and Foster Wheeler, for starters. Pretty much every country with an oil & gas industry has history with Libya.