Obama Signals willingness to arm Rebels

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Why not? After all, this strategy worked out so well when we supported Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Learning from our mistakes is an unreasonable expectation to place on this or dare I say, any administration.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Maybe because the situation in Libya isn't coached in terms of a religious war by its participants?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

It's still the Mighty Whitey nations coming to the rescue of Those Poor Backwards Brown Folk with some seriously ulterior motives. Gaddafi has been rattling his saber since I was in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, so what the fuck makes him such a clear and present danger NOW that we can't, you know, let the people of Libya handle their OWN affairs, like the Egyptians are doing? Just because I like Obama better than Bush does not mean that our government or our military is any more enlightened about Arabs or Muslims now than we were before. We neither understand nor respect these people's culture, which is a SUPER recipe for getting involved in their affairs. We WILL make this worse simply by CONTRIBUTING to it. That's a FACT.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ok since I cleared up you objection, you have another one? Ok.

It's still the Mighty Whitey nations coming to the rescue of Those Poor Backwards Brown Folk with some seriously ulterior motives.

Well, the Libyan rebels asked for help, no?

so what the fuck makes him such a clear and present danger NOW that we can't, you know, let the people of Libya handle their OWN affairs, like the Egyptians are doing?

Because the Egyptian military didn't launch an out right war on its citizens? Because the Arab League supports this action?

We neither understand nor respect these people's culture,

Broad assertion, and complete conjecture. You don't know what "we" know, and who is the "we?" You? Me? The State Dept, NATO, The Arab League, the United Nations?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Well, the Libyan rebels asked for help, no?

Good thing our troops aren't already over-committed and under-supported as a result of fighting two other wars, then. It's also a good thing that the UN has established a clear and consistent policy for when we should intervene, which means that we'll be taking action against North Korea any day now.

Because the Egyptian military didn't launch an out right war on its citizens?

Oh, so the Egyptian citizenry simply had a civil difference of opinion with their government, then? All the rioting and attempted suspension of their ability to communicate with the outside world and all the other TERRORIST tactics that the Egyptian government used against its own citizens, that were reported in the news, were simply IMAGINED, then?

Because the Arab League supports this action?

Good for them. Let them wipe their own goddamned asses, then. FUCK having America play Globocop, when so many of our troops have ALREADY died over wars of CHOICE rather than wars of NECESSITY.

Broad assertion, and complete conjecture.

Everything I witnessed during my seven years spent serving in the military, which included two overseas combat deployments as part of our "War On Terror," has led me to this "conjecture."

The U.S. doesn't know what the fuck it's doing over there, and the European Union doesn't give a shit that we don't know because all they want is our firepower to settle their own petty scores with Gaddafi, and the Arab League sees a win-win with our involvement, because they can rely our resources but still correctly blame us when things inevitably go wrong.

I DID this wartime shit, and even though I did it from the EASY side (seriously, being on board ship is NOTHING like being a ground-pounder), it was STILL an insanely tough road of hoe, and I will be godfuckingdamned if I let my fellow liberals, who RIGHTLY condemned Bush for throwing troops' lives away so casually, turn right around and support Obama doing the same fucking bullshit.

If it's so important to folks on the left OR the right that we start throwing our troops into the meat-grinder of YET ANOTHER WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, then let THEM fucking cowboy up, throw on some uniforms and serve on the front lines. If not, then maybe they should consider the possibility that they're nothing but cowardly hypocrites.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Good thing our troops aren't already over-committed and under-supported as a result of fighting two other wars, then. It's also a good thing that the UN has established a clear and consistent policy for when we should intervene, which means that we'll be taking action against North Korea any day now.

Don't know, the no fly zone doesn't seem to have made our military collapse yet. Seems fine to me. Do you have any information or sources that this action will the hair that breaks the camel's back?

Oh, so the Egyptian citizenry simply had a civil difference of opinion with their government, then? All the rioting and attempted suspension of their ability to communicate with the outside world and all the other TERRORIST tactics that the Egyptian government used against its own citizens, that were reported in the news, were simply IMAGINED, then?

Really? Were the Egyptian military forces bombing and executing their own citizens like the situation in Libya?

The U.S. doesn't know what the fuck it's doing over there, and the European Union doesn't give a shit that we don't know because all they want is our firepower to settle their own petty scores with Gaddafi, and the Arab League sees a win-win with our involvement, because they can rely our resources but still correctly blame us when things inevitably go wrong.

So everyone has an ulterior motive, we can't figure our ass from a hole in the ground, and Europe has an agenda for several terrorist attacks including the Lockerbie incident. I disagree.

Syria better wake up, they could be next on the list, and I wouldn't shed a tear if Bashar al-Assad go bye-bye.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Do you have any information or sources that this action will the hair that breaks the camel's back?

You mean aside from the record-high numbers of suicides among our military members, who have already been stop-lossed and screwed over by the VA and told that their PTSD is nonexistent even though we have folks coming back from combat in Iraq so fucking traumatized from fighting in urban environments that simply getting stuck in TRAFFIC JAMS is enough to send them into FLASHBACKS? You're awfully fucking brave about asserting how tough it is for someone else to make the sacrifices that, unless I'm missing something, you haven't seen fit to make yourself.

Were the Egyptian military forces bombing and executing their own citizens like the situation in Libya?

Because that's the ONLY way a government can wage war against its own citizens, and anything less than that is perfectly A-okay.

So everyone has an ulterior motive, we can't figure our ass from a hole in the ground, and Europe has an agenda for several terrorist attacks including the Lockerbie incident.

Yes, yes and yes, especially to the last one. More terrorist attacks mean that governments get to exercise more authoritarian controls, which is why Osama bin Laden explicitly endorsed global warming theories in his speeches, to make it seem like he shared ideological common ground with the Democrats, thereby driving American voters away from them, because as long as Republican presidents continued to wage war on the Muslim world as oppressively as Bush, bin Laden would have been guaranteed a steady stream of new recruits. It's an incredibly rare instance in which sociopathy is not a prerequisite for political power.

Syria better wake up, they could be next on the list, and I wouldn't shed a tear if Bashar al-Assad go bye-bye.

Are you willing to see your own loved ones die to accomplish these goals? Because by blithely saying that we should simply send our troops over there, you're telling the families of American military members that these wars of CHOICE are worth potentially killing their sons and daughters for. I may be jaded as all hell, but even I'm not that heartless.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You mean aside from the record-high numbers of suicides among our military members, who have already been stop-lossed and screwed over by the VA and told that their PTSD is nonexistent even though we have folks coming back from combat in Iraq so fucking traumatized from fighting in urban environments that simply getting stuck in TRAFFIC JAMS is enough to send them into FLASHBACKS? You're awfully fucking brave about asserting how tough it is for someone else to make the sacrifices that, unless I'm missing something, you haven't seen fit to make yourself.

Sorry, you're the one that's making this extremely personal, not me. I mean, I address each objection you raise, and you go on a rant tying this back into the Iraq War (or Afganistan War), when it's not the same thing or spin up another point that has nothing to do with Libya, and why you think we shouldn't intervene in some general way. I get it. Really I do.

Because that's the ONLY way a government can wage war against its own citizens, and anything less than that is perfectly A-okay.

I'm pretty sure I never said that. Actually, I'm very certain.

Are you willing to see your own loved ones die to accomplish these goals? Because by blithely saying that we should simply send our troops over there, you're telling the families of American military members that these wars of CHOICE are worth potentially killing their sons and daughters for. I may be jaded as all hell, but even I'm not that heartless.

This isn't Iraq.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Box, if you think the Egyption military and government were the same thing when all that was going down you weren't watching the same show as the rest of the world.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

What I saw was a populace being oppressed by those in power and actually taking steps of their own to combat it, proving that American intervention is unnecessary. What I also saw was a bunch of American pundits freaking out over that fact, because they can't stand the idea of the world solving its own problems without us, since that revokes our primary moral justification for starting shit with other nations.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

dv8nation was right, you weren't watching the same show.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

And the people in the streets finally won when the military said "Okay, this needs to end before things get really, really bad."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think you need to read about where Mubarak, Nasser, and Sadat all started their careers. Egypt has been more or less a military dictatorship since Britain got the boot.

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

I personally thought that Mubarak was effectively the military's puppet. They never opposed him for all those years, then they got rid of him when the going got bad. Yet everyone was praising them to high heavens.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Leaving the ranks of the military for the political circle tends to change things though. Of course, how much is a matter of debate.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with this. The military didn't back Mubarak because IMHO they want to ensure control of a regime that they *can* ensure is on their side. Mubarak was a losing candidate for them to back, and a dictatorship is not as intimidating when it meets a setback. Due to the lack of a functioning democratic system they're better off *without* Mubarak as far as controlling Nu-Egypt than they were with him.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

You're completely discarding every shred of nuance from each situation, then comparing them as if they're equivalent.
I expect better from someone as smart as you.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

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 telemann treated as though it was a fucking DEFECT of character.

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

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.

Those are all undeniably horrible and saddening.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

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.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think you underestimate what the Egyptian military did. Mubarak is for one thing dying of cancer, he'd be dead no matter what. The Egyptian military is Genre Savvy enough to know that Egypt's political systems aren't functionally democratic, and with the military like in Apartheid South Africa better-respected than the police, they can move in post-Mubarak Egypt to establish tighter control over the country than when they propped up Mubarak. Essentially they're bad guys who understand PR.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Also, I think we need to attribute a few other things to the rise of Islamic terrorism other than 'we gave them guns'. Just one or two other things.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Such as the role played by the dictators, with foreign backing, in eliminating any forms of opposition other than communist movements (because the Soviets never resisted a chance to step in any more than the USA did, and post 1969 the PRC was doing its thing there too) and Islam. Palestinian Communist movements were once pretty big before 1991, which argues the importance of Islamism is self-inflicted, not a sign that Muslims are inherently *more* prone to theocracy than Christians.