The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    MuddyPolitics's picture

    Does Obama Deserve Credit for the Death of Qaddafi?

    By MuddyPolitics on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 10:36pm |

    When President Obama intervened in Libya in March, 2011, political science professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said, “Republicans would be blind not to see an opening. This is one of the biggest mistakes Obama has made, arguably.”

    From CBSNews

    As we saw at the time, Republicans weren’t blind.

    The political “opening” provided by Obama’s alleged “invasion” of Libya led to harsh criticisms of the president. And while Republicans may have been out of sync in their messaging – some said it was unconstitutional, while others said Obama should have struck earlier and put boots on the ground – they definitely weren’t blind. All Republicans agreed it was wrong, they just couldn’t agree on which aspect of the intervention was most wrong.

    But things have changed.

    Now that Obama’s foreign policy strategies have led to the deaths of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and, most recently, the Libya Col. Muammer el-Qaddafi, Republicans appear to be quite blind indeed.

    The “war” that Republicans said had no aim, no goals, no definitive strategy for ousting a brutal dictator and freeing an oppressed citizenry, has now been justified. The United States and its allies protected the people of Libya from a regime whose troops were marching on its own cities. The brutal dictator was killed, and the Libya Revolution, the Libyan people, survived.

    It seems “one of the biggest mistakes” of Obama’s presidency was actually one of his biggest successes.

    Despite the many comparisons to Iraq made by Republicans in the beginning of the Libya intervention, despite the fears (or hopes) by many conservatives that Libya would turn into another Middle Eastern quagmire, and despite accusations that Obama had neither the experience nor the military strategy necessary for success in Libya, the two conflicts couldn’t be more different.

    One cost U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion. The other, $1 billion.

    • One took nine months to capture a dictator. The other, six months.

    •One resulted in the deaths of more than 4,400 U.S. service members. The other, zero.

    • One had few international allies despite Bush’s now infamous and vastly overstated “Coalition of the Willing.” The other was a NATO-led, legitimate coalition that had the support of France, Britain, Canada, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, among many others.

    • One created an anti-American guerilla army out of the hundreds of thousands of military officers whom the U.S. government ignored, rebuffed and essentially fired soon after sacking Baghdad. The other provided resources to the “all-inclusive mix of secularists and Islamists, women and men, young and old, longtime Gaddafi opponents and recent government defectors” that comprise the Libyan rebel forces.

    Yes, Obama now has another notch in his foreign policy belt, another victory to boast about during the campaign, and another clear contrast between his successes and the past administration’s failures. Given the Republicans’ inability to credit Obama for this victory, I can’t discourage those who want to rub it in the faces of the perpetual naysayers on the Right.

     

    From CBSNews

    But Libya was never about bragging rights. It was never about political perceptions or campaign talking points. The Libyan Revolution and the death of Qaddafi is about change we can believe in.

    It’s about America electing a man who was willing to engage in the Middle East for humanitarian purposes – the preservation of life – not the acquisition of oil or the overtaking of a geo-political stronghold. It’s about reasonable, responsible and rightly-guided foreign policy decisions. It’s about the rewards, not in heaven but here on Earth, of doing good even when the critics are incapable of detaching themselves from the political ramifications of what they believe is “one of the biggest mistakes Obama has made.”

    Most of all, it’s about helping an oppressed people help themselves as they fight to realize the dream of democracy, security, independence and, in their own way, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    That said, there is a price to pay for freedom, and like the hanging of Saddam Hussein in 2006, the following video of Qaddafi’s capture is one that few could say is the most beautiful illustration of humanity.

     

     

    Comments

    Serious question: Do you work for the Obama admonsitration and/or campaign?


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 12:37am

    The “war” that Republicans said had no aim, no goals, no definitive strategy for ousting a brutal dictator and freeing an oppressed citizenry, has now been justified.

    Just like the Iraq war was after we captured Saddam? I'm not equating the two, but I think it's a bit premature to suggest that things will be rosy in Libya. There are a lot of differences between Iraq and Libya, most notably that we're not occupying Libya (a very important difference) and that Libyans did the majority of the grunt work (also important). However, we're not out of the woods yet. Iraq wasn't a hell-hole after the fall of Saddam because we were occupying it, it's just that it became our hell-hole because of it. I sincerely hope the Libyans take advantage of this new situation to create a stable, democratic government, but I can't say that it's a foregone conclusion at this point.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 8:48am

    I find this blogpost disturbing for a number of reasons.  First, I don't understand your decision to use the photos and videos of a dead/dying Qaddafi.  It's just weird and unnecessary and offensive.  It reminds me of the pictures of the medical exam given to a captured Hussein.  Just what is the purpose of that?

    Second, your piece is purely a political piece, and I find that to be odd for this forum; it's  as if you're appealing to the flip side of the "you're either with us or against us" crowd from the Bush years. 

    Third, it presumes that your audience is incredibly simplistic, and I won't say that that in of itself is offensive, but I'm not sure why you think it's helpful or productive, and ultimately why it is at all convincing.

    There are very few black and white issues in the Middle East, and elsewhere for that matter.  I'm not saying you're wrong to claim that the president was correct to assist the Libyan rebels, but you are being silly if you think that everything is going to be democratic and groovy there as a result of this.  The fact is

    And, of course, rightly or wrongly, your argument is just mush unless you at least acknowledge the disconnect between our support of the rebels in Libya, as compared to our milquetoast response in Syria and Yemen.  I'm not saying that consistency is an imperative or even possible, but you, and not I, appear to be arguing that this reflects some kind of fundamental resolve on the part of the president that I don't see on the basis of what has happened--so far--in Libya.

    I just don't understand this piece beyond it being a political commercial for the wrong audience.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 9:49am

    Boy do I agree with what you've written Bruce! Damn, nothing good ever comes of this kind of action, I am certainly glad we don't have a large standing army there, but there will be no democracy in Libya, and insisting there will be is naive.  Good we backed the rebels, I guess, but we've yet to see the result and what will happen in Libya. I hope it isn't just an exchange of one creep for another, but that is what usually takes place.  I expect nothing positive, I just hope to hell things don't get worse there fast and I hope to hell that the next group in charge aren't brutal dictators, but I have no expectation that they won't be. So good the dude is gone, but will Libya be a Democracy, No they won't.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:02am

    I agree with basically everything bslev wrote, and your sentiments in your response.  But the one thing I think we should consider in all of this (aside from the slant of this blog) is that there is distinct possibility that the regime that does take hold - which is highly unlikely to be very democratic, but is by no means destined to be a brutal dictatorship that terrorizes the population - is at the moment a pro-Western leaning country in Northern Africa.  This is no small achievement and can go a long way in helping pave the way toward a reconciliation between the Muslim and Christian world that is still many decades down the road.  By being more open to the West, the cultural views - such as those related to democracy and equality of all citizens - are more likely to be able to take hold and overcome the cultural resistance to such views.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:26am

    I have no expectations Trope. But I am not going to cheer this either, because this stuff backfires more than it works.  I keep my fingers crossed that we didn't make some large mistake.

    On my 10th birthday in 1972, we were evacuated from Marinduque because of proclamation 1080. It was a scary time in the life of a 10 year old, but it was equally scary for my parents. I am very skeptical of us taking sides in these things, even though I know it is necessary at time to take sides.

    So although I have no idea what will take place in the future of Libya, I am just sitting back and hoping that things don't go terribly wrong, because they could, and if it does, we will take the blame.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:37am

    I think part of our problem is that we are inclined (and I include myself in this) to seek those events which we can cheer from the beginning.  Unfortunately in the messy international political world, especially in the post-colonial world of Africa, there are few actions of intervention where we can even remotely be guaranteed that things will turn out well.  If we wait for those only situations where things are likely to turn out well, we will be waiting for a long long time.  In other words, we would have a standard policy to never intervene in this region of the world because we cannot say how things will turn out.  There is a risk indeed, and this risk increases the longer we support a regime in Libya that clearly shows itself to be as bad or worse than the previous one. 

    But an opportunity presented itself and I think given what is known (which is little), it was and is worth the roll of dice.  It is unlikely to become a democracy, but it may turn out to be the first step towards the conditions that will lead to a democracy in the sense that we understand it (freedom of the press, value of individual rights, etc). 


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:47am

    I completely agree. Why can't people understand?


    by Haseo (not verified) on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 10:01am

    Hey TMC and AT:

    I guess it's not fair to say that these things never turn out well with respect to a transition to democracy, but I think it usually doesn't work out that way.  That's not to say that we shouldn't participate on humanitarian grounds when we can and under the right circumstances.  Destor below also raises a fair point that he's raised previously, and that is the authority of the president to take these kinds of actions. 

    In any event, I'm more troubled by the nature of the blog--it just seems too rah rah and presumes that the depth of awareness around here is at Grade Level 6 or something. 

     


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:41am

    'There are very few black and white issues in the Middle East...'

    Except, apparently, when it comes to Israel knocking off geriatric paraplegics in wheelchairs with missiles, which Bruce recently said was entirely justified.


    by NCD on Tue, 10/25/2011 - 9:32pm

    Actually, he didn't say it was "entirely justified", but was "far more justified  than teaching children about the merits of suicide attacks against innocent civilians." In the context of pointing out that the "geriatric paraplegic in [a wheelchair]" was a "spiritual murderer of innocents", one might infer that he felt it was justified, but that's not what he said. I think primarily he was upset that you seemed to be completely dismissing this geriatric's guilt.

    Edit to add: It's as if one were to criticize Cheney's critics by accusing them of picking on a "geriatric in a wheelchair".


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 10/26/2011 - 9:54am

    I was against the Libya intervention from the very beginning and I don't believe that the success or failure of the mission has anything to do with it.  The question is, to what extent should we use American military power to influence completely foreign conflicts.  In this case, we out and out chose sides in a civil war and used sporadic interventions from the air to make sure that the war ended the way we wanted it to.  I think that's pretty dangerous policy.  It's great when it works and awful when it doesn't.  I also don't understand, at a time where we have serious domestic problems that have gone ignored, how this got to be a priority.

     


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 10:28am

    From just the purely academic debate point of view - the Rwanda genocide was a "completely foreign conflict."  And so going along these lines, the US has no business (pun intended) getting involved in such global events.  But let's also be honest and say there is a lot of oil involved in the conflict over Libya.  And as much as we hate it, oil prices influence the global economy which influences the US economy which influences the unemployment rate, etc.  So was the conflict in Libya really a "completely foreign conflict"?  And some may not believe oil is a justification for any level of military intervention are also the same people who are very upset about the current level of employment in this country.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:32am

    I guess I've never been convinced that we should have gotten involved in Rwanda either. That could have turned into a quagmire. If we are going to sign onto UN sponsored responsibility to protect interventions, we should probably raise a volunteer army for that purpose. Our current volunteers signed up to protect us against direct threats. As for Libya and oil... The US tolerated Qaddafi for decades. Also, of we do fight another war for oil, I'd like to be told upfront that's what we're doing.

    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 12:33pm

    in both cases - the Rwanda scenario and the war for oil scenario - i just don't think we've been able to have a serious debate as a society.  Regarding the latter one, the current OWS phenomenon, like its Tea Party cousin, has been driven in large part because of the standard of living situation of current Americans, yet we are compelled politically to talk about only the high ideals of freedom, liberty et al.  We don't want to kill for oil, but when a gallon of gas goes over $5 politicians get kicked out of office while the economy stalls.  Maybe if it was clear that the prices and economic sacrifices we were willing to make by not going into intervention mode, things might be different.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 12:47pm

    I suspect that the mount most Americans are willing to sacrifice for any foreign intervention old be very small. Along the lines of "well, okay. But you'll have to cut my taxes to pay for it."

    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 1:13pm

    What Kim Jong-Il Learned from Qaddafi's Fall: Never Disarm

    The world watched in awe this Thursday as photos of Mummar Qaddafi's bludgeoned corpse marked the end of the Libyan dictator's 42-year rule. Libyans filled the streets in jubilation and leaders worldwide issued impassioned statements as the brutal regime came to an end. But 6,000 miles away in Pyongyang, North Korea, one leader was probably not celebrating. This gruesome end to Qaddafi's rule has likely confirmed what Kim Jong Il must have long been aware -- a dictator who wants to hold on to power should also hold onto his nuclear weapons.  
    ...
    The North Korean dictator has taken a very different nuclear path. No doubt understanding that his regime and his own survival are under constant threat, Kim has been quite unwilling to disarm. The last two decades have provided him with numerous cautionary tales of dictatorships defeated -- the Iraqi army was trounced in 1991, NATO triumphed over Milosevic in 1999, and the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. And just this March, as NATO operations in Libya began, a North Korean spokesperson announced the lesson that Kim's regime had learned: "It has been shown to the corners of the earth that Libya's giving up its nuclear arms. ... was used as an invasion tactic to disarm the country by sugarcoating it with words like 'the guaranteeing of security' and the 'bettering of relations.' Having one's own strength," the official continued, "was the only way to keep the peace."


    by Donal on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:23am

    Juan Cole, a supporter of the UN/NATO action, made an interesting reply to a commenter, one that stood out for me, which I think might serve as a thought provoker to both pro-interventionists and anti-interventionists on this:

    Qaddafi’s People’s Temple

    Posted on 10/21/2011 by Juan

    [.....]

     

    § 61 Responses to “Qaddafi’s People’s Temple”

    • [.....]
      Jules says:

      10/21/2011 at 12:43 pm

      The lesson in all this is never make peace with the Americans. They will stab you in the back. It wasn’t the ‘rebels’ who overthrew Qaddafi but NATO. (According the NY Times it was a French warplane and one of those famous American predator drones that hit his convoy thus allowing for the lynching to take place). This was regime change.

      Will the natural resources of Libya (ie. OIL) be distributed to the Libyans or will some other players step in and “make a buck”?

      The French have been promised a lot of it. It’s been widely reported in the French media and one of Sarko’s ministers has already bragged about it. Whether this will come to pass is another matter.

       

    I do think your post, in making it all about U.S. politics, ill serves the issue. However, if you are going to do that, one thing you seem to miss is that, unlike the raid into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, this action was not something conservative unilateralists would ever praise, as it was defined by Obama himself from the getgo as an effort where the U.S. alone was not going to lead, and as U.N. approved. That's like a poke in the eye to most conservative foreign policy ideology. (Yes, I realize that many on the left side of the aisle don't believe the U.S. wasn't leading, but if you are going to talk the U.S. political vein, those kind of realities don't really matter, only the presentation.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 10/24/2011 - 11:44am