Re: Obama - incompetent policy in tatters, Libya in chaos
posted at 9/4/2013 4:36 PM EDT
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
Hansori: And how do you know Obama didn't think? How do you know he didn't think intelligently about the situation?
I think the bottom line is that you are much more upset with the results than you are with the decisions that were made at the time. I don't see any reason to believe that you, Romney, McCain, or anyone else would have come up with a better approach. None of these situations had a clear right answer, and each of them could have been expensive with or without intervention, depending on how things turned out.
Libyan rebels rise up against an evil dictator. What should Obama do? Nothing? Help the dictator? Limited intervention?
He chose limited intervention.
Egyptian civilians rise up against evil dictator. What should Obama do? Nothing? Help the dictator? Limitated intervention?
He gave a speech or two.
Iranian civilians rise up against evil government. What should Obama do? Nothing? Help the government? Limited intervention?
He gave a speech or two.
So what really is your gripe? That speeches for Iran/Egypt, and some weapons/advice for libya was too much? Was it too little?
What is actually wrong with what Obama did and how would you have done it better?
If you look back at our policies and actions in the Middle East, they appear to be a total clusterfork.
We help one side in a conflict out of self-interest. For the most part that self-interest is to make sure that there is access to oil at market prices. Without the oil, I don't think anyone would be so concerned about what happens in the Middle East, do you?
We along with the British, arrange for the Shah to take power in Iran. That was in the 50s. 25 years later Carter abandons him and we get the despotic islamic theocracy that resulted in numerous energy shortages and now Iran with nuclear weapons or close to it.
Was it a good thing for us to see the Shah toppled?
So what should our policy be? Should we support the secular dictators to keep the peace and maintain access to oil or should we arrange to have them toppled to risk access to oil and see these countries go to chaos with the islamic extremists taking over?
Look at Afghanistan. We help the Mujahadeen harass the Russians, then we leave it in a power vacuum that ends up with people we help (bin Laden, etc) attacking us.
In Libya, we aid the rebels. In the process we lied to the UN and ticked off the Russians and CHinese and it is possible that some of the weapons used in Benghazi came from US!
In Syria we are helping the rebels, who,if they were in Iraq, would be arrested if not killed in battle. And what have they been arrested for? Making chemical weapons - Sarin and mustard gas.
I'd rather have the secular dictators in place seeing as though the alternatives have never worked out at all. Only downside.
And now we are going to lob a few bombs in SYria? for what? what isin it for us but the threat of retaliation?
What should have Obama done? Either nothing or found a way to keep Khaddaffy in charge. That is what is better for us. The libyans are no better off for what we have done.