Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Alexander Decina, Daily Beast: In Syria, What Obama Learned From Libya
Dumb judgments about who’s in charge helped speed Libya on the path toward failed-state status. The same thing could happen in Syria, but with much worse consequences.
Libya is a mess. The country’s two competing governments—the secular-leaning House of Representatives (HoR) and the Islamist-leaning General National Congress (GNC)—have been squabbling over power since June 2014. Both sides have relied on a loose alliance of militias for support, but, mostly, those are tails wagging the dogs. These parliaments lack legitimacy or real power, and it is the militias, which prop them up, that are actually controlling the country.
On Dec. 23, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to accept a transition process to implement a “Government of National Accord,” effectively inserting a third government into Libya’s chaos.
Good luck with that.
WNU Editor: Syria is already disaster .... it is hard to see that it can get worst .... but it can. Alexander Decina wrote this post for the Daily Beast before this story broke out .... Western Military Forces To Be Deployed To Libya To Seize Islamic State Oilfields. It looks like President Obama is open to the idea of sending U.S. forces into failed states, and Libya is going to have taste of this U.S. involvement. Is Syria next?
8 comments:
Has he learned?!!!!!
Has he learned?!!!!!!!
Aw c'mon!!!!
Seriously?!
This BS is shameful and those who play it are shameless.
Don't act all simple and incredulous. His O'ness and the rest of them know exactly what they're doing.
This s### is tooooooo much.
In the US system of government there is simply no downside for making major foreign policy mistakes where many people suffer and die. Now fooling around with an intern in the White House toilet, that's different, an impeachable offense.
Re: Obama's "policy" on Libya
Remarks by Ambassador [to Libya] Gene A. Cretz
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Friday, June 4, 2010 (extracts)
–The United States and Libya have just embarked on the second year of fully renewed diplomatic relations – including the first exchange of Ambassadors in 36 years. In previous speeches, I have made – and will continue to make – the case that continued engagement with Libya is in our long-term national interest.
–The U.S.-Libya relationship has rapidly expanded to include much more than cooperation in nonproliferation and science and technology.
–Today, Libya remains a strong ally in countering terrorism in a volatile region. It has fought the expansion of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, has condemned kidnappings, and has taken a position against the paying of ransom to kidnappers.
President Barack Obama stated in a speech to the nation on March 28, 2011, "The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone," adding explicitly, "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died"
the obama administration has surrounded itself with like-minded dbags to enforce its corruption and is using strong arm tactics/espionage/etc to allow them to act beyond the scope of the executive branch.
Stealing power from a system that was designed to check and balance itself against tyranny.
i wouldnt be surprised if obama murdered one of his opponents in congress on live broadcast and was then protected against a trial to hold him accountable for his actions under law by said like-minded dbags in his administration, dc media, and perhaps a large mis-informed portion of the american public.
Don,
This is the only difference I have with you so far regarding their foreign policy. Libya was no mistake. They knew, and know, exactly what they're doing.
Have you read Forte's book. I strongly recommend it to everyone who reads this blog.
https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/review-slouching-sirte-natos-war-libya-africa-maximilian-forte/
@RRH
I don't doubt what you say, in fact I agree with it. What I'm highlighting are the public expressions of policy, which is the way policy is defined. Policy is not what is in their minds and and/or what they actually do (as in this case). It is the duty of government to formulate foreign policy and then to express it and implement it through diplomacy and other means. It should not be the implementation of hidden thoughts, in the manner you correctly point out. Libya may be the best example of that.
So, again, I was referring to the title of the piece regarding Obama's policy on Libya to show that his stated policy was different from his actual policy. Most importantly, his stated policy actually made some sense (and was in line with the UNSC resolution, by the way) but his actual policy was different.
That's why I put "policy" in quotes.
And, as usual, you're right on the money.
I picked up you drift a second read around. Your last qoute from Cankles the Gangsta summed it up nicely.
..not always ... stay on me.
Post a Comment