In Libya, Obama playing the cards he’s been dealt
President Obama’s decision to join our European and Arab allies in launching air assaults against Libyan forces has been criticized by some as an ad hoc, patched-together reaction rather than a carefully thought-out strategy. And to a degree, they’re right. Sometimes, an unexpected and quickly changing situation does not permit the careful application of strategy. Sometimes, you just have to play your cards as they are dealt, recalculating risk and reward as each card is flipped your way. I don’t know how this is going to play out, but so far Obama seems to be playing his hand rationally and cautiously.
Sure, intervening earlier against Gadhafi on the side of the Libyan rebels might have proved more effective in military terms, but it also would have put the United States in the position of trying to dictate outcomes in the Arab world. And not intervening at all, as some on the left still advocate, was a cruel option at best. Had the coalition not acted when it did last week, the world today would probably be sitting back and watching helplessly while a brutal Gadhafi massacred tens of thousands of his fellow Libyans.
Many of those now condemning Obama for acting would have been condemning him for not acting. That’s how these things go. As Obama himself noted in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, “I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”
The fact that we are acting, somewhat reluctantly, at the urging of European and Arab allies also minimizes the geo-political risk. This is not an American initiative in which the United Nations and others are being strong-armed to support our policy; this is an international initiative which the United States has agreed to join as its most powerful member. There’s a world of difference between the two, not least because it has forced other countries to shed their infantilism and take responsibility, rather than leaving the tough decisions to Uncle Sam all the time and then grumbling about the outcome.
Obama’s critics also point out that we have no real idea how this will end, or even how we want it to end. Again, that’s accurate to a degree. However, Gadhafi himself has made it clear that he sees only two possible outcomes: victory or death. He has no third option — at this point, he can’t leave Libya to live elsewhere, and he knows it.
Publicly, coalition leaders are saying that Gadhafi is not a military target, but the smoking ruins of his personal compound in Tripoli offer more convincing evidence to the contrary. And at some point, if Western air power doesn’t take him out, his own commanders might. They now see their units being taken apart from the air, and there’s nothing they can do to defend themselves. The quickest way to make it stop is to make Gadhafi stop.
So we shall see.
– Jay Bookman
ADDENDUM: After all these years, the cynicism of Newt Gingrich continues to amaze and even disgust.
Until last week, the former speaker had been pressing Obama to intervene militarily in Libya and force Gadhafi’s ouster. “This is a moment to get rid of him,” he told Greta Van Susteren on Fox. “Do it. Get it over with.”
So what does he say now? As Politico reports:
“Newt Gingrich blasted the decision to attack Libya Sunday afternoon as “opportunistic amateurism without planning or professionalism.”
“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.
Iran and North Korea pose “vastly bigger threats” to American national interests, he argued. There are other countries in Africa where strongmen brutalize civilians, including Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
“Mugabe has killed more people, the Sudanese dictatorship has killed more people, there are a lot of bad dictators doing bad things,” Gingrich said.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,639 comments Add your comment
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:05 pm
Doggone, you’re digressing again. The point was that Mr. Obama has clearly made a complete reversal of his stated position in only 3 years. Not only did you not address the issue, but you veered off trying to make it about Bush. I for one, strongly believed that Mr Bush would go to war with Iraq virtually since the day he was elected, so it was hardly a flip-flop on his part. Mr. Bush may have been wrong, wrong, wrong about the Iraq matter, but he wasn’t flip-flopping on the issue nor did he backpedal from his mistake.
Mr. Obama seems more than willing to make strong proclamations in–let him be perfectly clear–and then take actions that are diametrically opposed to his stated position, as if his previous words were nothing more than text on a teleprompter.
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
11:08 pm
“but you veered off trying to make it about Bush”
Which Bush? And no, I did not “veer” off. As far as I know that no-fly zone over Iraq was never authorized by the Congress, the UN or NATO. So given the quotes from Obama, I just wondered what “imminent danger” cause us to get involved in the first place?
You obviously don’t know either.
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:09 pm
think of all the jobs that have been saved in building 125 more missiles..
The military and related industries have long been observed to be a massive jobs program. Which is why I sometimes wondered why Democrats so often speak ill of it (except when the program on the block is in their district, in which case they can’t get in front of enough cameras proclaiming the absolute need for the program/base/personnel).
Tommy Maddox
March 21st, 2011
11:09 pm
So sad: our new battle cry:
“Let’s follow France!”
Think about it. Just think about it.
I’m glad Sarkozy has a pair. Time to start singing “we are the world…”
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:11 pm
In the Iraq wars, there was a not subtle undercurrent of exhausting some of the older supplies so that they would be replaced with more modern munitions…and you might as well use them.
R is for Recession
March 21st, 2011
11:15 pm
Funny how the Repubs are comparing this to Iraq. The is 1 similarity – this is a NO FLY ZONE. The same as what we had in Iraq for over 10 years to keep Saddam at bay from killing his people. Now for the HUGE DIFFERENCES: this is NOT a ground attack by US troops to overthrow the dictator. This is NOT an effort led by the US, without UN approval, and spurning all of our allies in process. (It’s us, Spain, Italy, France, UK….) Unlike Bush, Obama did NOT bully small and poor countires (like Albania, Armenia, Latvia, El Salvador) into sending troops. Instead, the Obama administration worked with our Allies and usual enemies (Arab League) to take prudent steps, leading to a no fly zone.
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
11:15 pm
“and you might as well use them”
It would have been cheaper to give them to Mythbusters and let them blow up garbage trucks with them (and yes, I already know Mythbusters wasn’t around then)
RB from Gwinnett
March 21st, 2011
11:15 pm
Doggie, we’re not talking about Iraq here. We’re talking about Obama and his actions in Libya. Defend your man if you can. Obama made the call. Do you agree with it or has he overstepped his authority as POTUS? The fact he’s stayed Bush’s course in Iraq vs. what he campaign promised you is a different story.
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:16 pm
Doggone Which Bush? And no, I did not “veer” off. As far as I know that no-fly zone over Iraq was never authorized by the Congress, the UN or NATO. So given the quotes from Obama, I just wondered what “imminent danger” cause us to get involved in the first place? You obviously don’t know either.
Well, the US coalition imposed it after the first war, IIRC, and claimed some UN resolution that the UN said provided no such authority. But what does that have to do with the issue? You tried to deflect by changing the subject rather than address the issue, and the new subject was a smokescreen of sorts “look what they did”. There’s all kinds of thing we could discuss on Iraq, but I was simply interested in how one, esp. one on the left, can reconcile Mr. Obama’s strong words with his recent actions that are completely contrary to his previous words?
Really?
March 21st, 2011
11:17 pm
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:09 pm
The military and related industries have long been observed to be a massive government program. Which is why I sometimes wondered why Republicans so often don’t speak ill of it (except when the program on the block is in their district, in which case they can’t get in front of enough cameras proclaiming the absolute need for the program/base/personnel).
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
11:19 pm
“Defend your man if you can”
He’s not “my man” – I supported Hillary Clinton
“Do you agree with it or has he overstepped his authority as POTUS?”
I wouldn’t have a clue. It depends on what our responsibilities are to help enforce a Security Council authorization.
“The fact he’s stayed Bush’s course in Iraq vs. what he campaign promised you is a different story.”
He didn’t promise ME anything. And I never believe a candidate’s campaign promises anyway, ESPECIALLY if I know that fulfilling the promise is not actually in the candidates power to do.
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:20 pm
R is for Recession
March 21st, 2011
11:15 pm
I’ve already posted much earlier today clear rebuttal of pretty much your whole argument. In Iraq War (Bush 43’s war) we had Spain, UK, and others in a coalition that formed after many UN resolutions. And Mr. Bush had Congressional approval for the action.
Damned if you do....
March 21st, 2011
11:21 pm
The neocons are upset about this? They love their military spending. I thought if anything, it is unpatriotic to question your president in a time of war? Are the neocons mad because we actually worked with our allies to build a real coalition?
Doggone/GA
March 21st, 2011
11:21 pm
“You tried to deflect by changing the subject rather than address the issue,”
I asked a plain question about which I was curious. If you interpret it as anything other than that, that’s your problem not mine.
R is for Recession
March 21st, 2011
11:22 pm
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:20 pm
Wow you rebutted two of my 12 points. Good debate work!
RB from Gwinnett
March 21st, 2011
11:27 pm
Doggie, are you saying you didn’t vote in the 2010 election or you voted for McCain? If you voted for Obama, I don’t care who you supported in the primary, Obama is YOUR man. I didn’t support McCain in the primary either, but I did vote for him (while holding my nose…)
BTW, do you ever answer a question or do you always make excuses and change the subject?
I asked this earlier and none of you could give me an answer. What exactly is Obama’s exit strategy? Heard anything about it? How about calling your congressman and see if he’s heard about it. I’ll bet not. Sure didn’t happen on CSAN did it?
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:29 pm
Doggone I asked a plain question about which I was curious. If you interpret it as anything other than that, that’s your problem not mine.
If you say so. The timing of your question, which appeared to be in response to my posting, certainly gave the impression that you were trying to pull off a schoolyard dissemblance, and then you impugned me with text that had a very condescending tone, it seemed to me.
But since you say you were truly interested in a different subject, and were doing none of the above, I’m left with nothing but to take you at your word. Because you’re an honorable person, any perceived deflection I may have detected on your part stem entirely from my inability to “get” what you’re really saying. Thanks for pointing that out for me.
willydoit?
March 21st, 2011
11:31 pm
Kill’em….kill’em all
Really?
March 21st, 2011
11:33 pm
RB from Gwinnett
March 21st, 2011
11:27 pm
I asked this earlier and none of you could give me an answer. What exactly is Obama’s exit strategy? Heard anything about it? How about calling your congressman and see if he’s heard about it. I’ll bet not. Sure didn’t happen on CSAN did it?
CNN is reporting that upon completion of his Latin America meetings, Obama will be shuttled to an aircraft carrier off San Diego for a Mission Accomplished celebration.
willydoit?
March 21st, 2011
11:35 pm
If you were for the Iraq and Afgan wars, then you have to support the Libyain war.
If you were against the Iraq and Afgan wars, then you should be against the Libyain war.
MPercy
March 21st, 2011
11:42 pm
R there were twelve points in that posting? There were only 8 sentences and one parenthetical fragment. And the first sentence was not really making a point.
Funny how the Repubs are comparing this to Iraq.
The next two sentences make the same point, it seems.
“The is 1 similarity – this is a NO FLY ZONE. The same as what we had in Iraq for over 10 years to keep Saddam at bay from killing his people.
New point follows. And indeed this is one my earlier postings did not address; on the other hand, no one knows that there will not be ground troops in Libya at some point.
“Now for the HUGE DIFFERENCES: this is NOT a ground attack by US troops to overthrow the dictator.
The next 3 sentences and parenthetical fragment all formulate the same point: Obama did this differently than Bush. You promote this concept with false statements.
“This is NOT an effort led by the US, without UN approval, and spurning all of our allies in process. (It’s us, Spain, Italy, France, UK….) Unlike Bush, Obama did NOT bully small and poor countires (like Albania, Armenia, Latvia, El Salvador) into sending troops. Instead, the Obama administration worked with our Allies and usual enemies (Arab League) to take prudent steps, leading to a no fly zone.
I spoke about the Bush 43 Iraq War earlier, but to more specifically address you comment on the no fly zone over Iraq, this came after the 1st Gulf War, which was fought with large support in the UN and a broad coalition that formed after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The no-fly zones were enforced by the coalition after the war.
Wikipedia says:
The Iraqi no-fly zones were a set of two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south.
JKL2
March 21st, 2011
11:44 pm
How does Obama expect to pay for this war?
Has does bombing another muslim country increase our credibility worldwide?
What is the benchmark for success in Libya?
How long will the war last?
What is our exit strategy?
Why is this cowboy attacking a country that never did anything to us?
RB from Gwinnett
March 21st, 2011
11:49 pm
JLK2, I sure hope you’re not staying up late waiting for answers. These libs are so confused they don’t know what to say except “but, but, but…… Bush….Bush…. but, Bush….” It quite comical.
Gandalf, The White
March 21st, 2011
11:52 pm
That Barry, He’s Scary…
Gandalf, The White
March 21st, 2011
11:54 pm
I bet Barry and that “fugly” woman he married are having fun in Brazil as the world is crumbling…
I hope all you who hoped for change are happy with your choice now (all you who live in GA who voted for him, that doesn’t count, we voted for the REPUBLICAN)
Paulo977
March 21st, 2011
11:55 pm
Damned
if you do….
“I thought if anything, it is unpatriotic to question your president in a time of war? Are the neocons mad because we actually worked with our allies to build a real coalition?”Iknow, isn’t that what “If you’re not with us you’re against us ‘ meant? Well the whole thingy about cooperating with allies seems to needle them,you know sort of in a green-eyed way!
Gandalf, The White
March 21st, 2011
11:57 pm
Every day we are closer to ending this chapter of the Worst President Ever saga…He’s finally passed Jimmy “the idiot peanut farmer” as worst ever…How can you fight a war when you are on Vacation? WWHTD? (what would Harry Truman do?) Just sayin…Damn Skippy!
Gandalf, The White
March 21st, 2011
11:58 pm
Paulo it was unpatriotic to elect that sad sack of … of… well, Barry, he’s Scary!
JKL2
March 22nd, 2011
12:05 am
RB- Just wondering where all the outrage is for this “cowboy” presidnet we have? Those are just quotes I’ve heard from the Demwits here blaming Bush (up until last week). I don’t think Libya is anything we should be involved with, but it looks like we’re stuck now.
Obama lied, people died. Punish the war criminal….
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
March 22nd, 2011
12:34 am
Well, if I am not mistaken Commando in Chief Obama has the distinction of having this country involved in more was at the same time than any other president:
I) Afghanistan
2) Iraq
3) libya
4) Rogue Pirates
5) Korea (yes, a state of war still exists …. we only have a cease fire)
Maybe he should get the “Pulitzer Prize for War” ?
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
March 22nd, 2011
12:39 am
The Buffalo President would have been a good commander of the “Buffalo Soldiers”. They massacred a lot of Native Indians for the crime of “mopery with intent to creep”.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
March 22nd, 2011
12:46 am
HKEADLINE: “FOOD FEARS: High Radiation Found in Japanese Produce, Milk’
Kind of gives new meaning to “Snap, Crackle and Pop” cereal.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
March 22nd, 2011
12:50 am
“Iran ordered attack on Israeli civilians
On holiday commemorating how Jews were saved from Persia”
Did that even make the mainstream news?
Read more: Iran ordered attack on Israeli civilians http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=278001#ixzz1HIiBPNxj
Gandalf, The White
March 22nd, 2011
1:18 am
Barry is such a twit, he married a fat faced woman!
Gandalf, The White
March 22nd, 2011
1:20 am
Last I heard R, tanks don’t fly! No Fly zone? rubbish, it’s Barry new bully pulpit.
TnGelding
March 22nd, 2011
5:46 am
Something is wrong with our election process when he was the best of the two remaining candidates, but to criticize him for being on vacation is absurd. He was on a pre-planned trade and goodwill mission that was much needed for our neglected South American neighbors. There are plenty of legitimate issues to attack him on. Stop being petty and let the young man live his life. What happened to family values?
carlaroqs
March 23rd, 2011
8:38 am
jay, will you marry me? you are so open minded. and we both feel the same way about newt- to use his own words against him: can we just get rid of him??? omgosh. peadawg-to all of your posts: what?? and no, 3 wars at one time is not ideal– but…how many were inherited by YOUR President????????? mike- handle your business, boy!
Gingrich turns to his innermost beliefs, and finds he has none | Jay Bookman
March 23rd, 2011
3:12 pm
[...] I pointed out in a post Monday, Newt Gingrich believes that, frankly, Newt Gingrich is absolutely wrong about [...]
Gingrich turns to innermost beliefs, but finds he has none | Jay Bookman | Slinking Toward Retirement
March 24th, 2011
1:34 am
[...] I pointed out in a post Monday, Newt Gingrich believes that, frankly, Newt Gingrich is absolutely wrong about [...]