Clinton Cites Rwanda, Bosnia in Rationale for Libya Intervention

[jefferson_dem]

Clinton Cites Rwanda, Bosnia in Rationale for Libya Intervention
March 27, 2011 8:40 AM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasized the humanitarian rationale for the U.S. military intervention in Libya, recalling instances from recent history when a lack of U.S. intervention had left hundreds of thousands dead.

In an interview with ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper on “This Week,” Clinton said that the United Nations-backed military intervention in Libya “is a watershed moment in international decision making. We learned a lot in the 1990s. We saw what happened in Rwanda. It took a long time in the Balkans, in Kosovo to deal with a tyrant. But I think in what has happened since March 1st, and we're not even done with the month, demonstrates really remarkable leadership.”

Appearing with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates – the two secretaries first joint interview since the Libya operation began – Clinton played out a hypothetical of what non-intervention by the United States might have looked like.

“Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi,” the Libyan opposition forces’ stronghold, “had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled and, as Bob said, either with nowhere to go or overwhelming Egypt while it's in its own difficult transition. And we were sitting here, the cries would be, why did the United States not do anything?” she said

“Why -- how could you stand by when, you know, France and the United Kingdom and other Europeans and the Arab League and your Arab partners were saying you've got to do something,” Clinton told Tapper

<SNIP>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/clinton-cites-rwanda-bosnia-in-rationale-for-libya-intervention.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Meeker Morgan]

1. We don't have infinite resources and we are not omnipotent.

No we do not have to "do something".

[Kurmudgeon]

2. I'm sure this took less resources than Iraq, and it's not like we didn't owe Qaddafi.

If you prefer, we could elect another Republican and spread that action all through the neighboring countries.
That is your alternative, by the way.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Some of our resources were used to prop Gadaffi up over the years...

.... so we can afford to spend some of our resources now to help the Libyan people fight him. Fair is fair.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Tried to warn you about warmonger Hillary.

[asjr]

4. Proud of yourself?

[Beacool]

7. Yep, she wakes up every morning thinking of places the US can bomb next.

:crazy:

[Avant Guardian]

9. You mean Obama

She is carrying out Obama's wishes and speaking for the Obama administration.

[rpannier]

19. So she's doing this on her own w/o administration approval? nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. No doubt Hillary is calling the shots...

Hillary's gotta have something she's holding over Obama's head. No way he'd go along with this madness. He made this clear during the 08 campaign. Obama didn't win the Nobel peace prize for nothing.

[Beacool]

6. Yeah, right...........

"The White House vehemently denied that Clinton, Powers and Rice were instrumental in pushing the President to approve the Libya intervention."

:eyes:




:7

[DURHAM D]

8. I am so confused -

First the WH boys leak the "three women" story and then they turn around and deny it.

and they say women can't make up their mind...

[Beacool]

10. Well.............

They leaked that the 3 women were instrumental in getting Obama to agree to the no-fly zone as a cover in case it fails. If the operation is a success the WH will take credit, if it fails they'll blame the women (mainly Hillary). On the other hand, it didn't serve the WH's purposes to have Obama appear not to "man-up", therefore tomorrow's speech (although not to be delivered from the Oval Office). Politics is a shell game, most of these people are B.S. artists. But the fault falls on the apathetic public for believing the manure that emanates from politicians' mouth. More people know who are the latest winners of "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars" than they know the name of the vice president.

:(

[karynnj]

22. I seriously doubt the WH boys "leaked" that story

With any behind the scenes story, you need to ask who benefits? With that story the answer is obvious - Hillary Clinton. The story does something I really have not seen before, it diminishes the role of the President in taking the country to war. The story line is that the important decision maker here was Hillary Clinton and to a lesser degree, Rice and Powers.

The first place with that story was a BIG, front page NYT behind the scenes story. The fact is that the NYT has long had good insider contacts among Clinton's staff. An interesting alternative is that the NYC based Dr Susan Rice's staff might have been the source. (Rice would be an incredible replacement for Clinton.)

However, my best guess is that this story might not have Obama administration insiders as the source - and might have been based on conjecture given public comments. No one leaks a story making them look like the "losers" in the deciding whether to take the country to war. If the action ends up being seen as neutral or positive, this minimizes the credit the President would otherwise get. If Libya becomes incredibly unpopular, leaking that the President was pushed to do this by the women, does not help him in least - in fact it makes it worse. The story actually feeds the Republican theme that President Obama is weak, ineffectual and over his head.

All the above is based on conjecture and asking who benefits.

[Beacool]

23. I don't think that the Clinton camp leaked anything.

Hillary has said repeatedly that she doesn't plan to stay on after 2012. Why would she want to leak this story if she doesn't plan to run for public office again? Nope, facts are facts and Hillary has always been far more decisive than Obama. He dithers to the point of distraction on important issues.

[karynnj]

24. I did not say that i thought Hillary leaked it

I don't actually think a leak was needed to create that story, but if it was I assume that people in the Clinton camp are the most likely. As to her not staying on after 2012, it is really not related. Possible motive - legacy and reputation building come to mind.

As to more decisive, Hillary - even per this switched to wanting to join the coalition at most a day or two before Obama - not a case of being all that much more decisive. In addition, it is not clear at all that ANYTHING international, with some Arab approval could have been done any earlier at all - and both of those were important. The only thing that would have been nice in addition was to have used the three weeks to go to Congress, but that would have meant asking Congress before there was the Arab request, which would change the dynamics.

I suspect that years from now when the real story comes out, Obama - and Clinton - will both be seen to have done good jobs in a really tricky situation. (If Hillary were President, I would hope she would have shown the same caution and ignored the slurs that a President can get when they don't immediately take positions. )

[Beacool]

25. I would expect any president to think carefully over an issue before deciding on a course of action.

But I also think that after listening to all sides a president should move promptly. We have been a day late and a pound short on various fronts.

[karynnj]

26. That assumes that you control all the variables that you think needed

What seems clear is that it was important that this be seen as something the Arab League called for and it had to be international. Notice that the US, via Susan Rice, was very involved in getting the resolution at the UN.

I seriously doubt that Clinton deciding that we should go a few days earlier had an impact. (In fact, I don't think a President John Kerry, who was saying what Obama and Clinton are now over three weeks ago - long before Clinton, would have been able to move faster - because he was saying that he would not intervene unless it was clear Libya was on verge of a blood bath - and that happened when Gadaffi moved troops around Benghazi. In addition, he spoke of getting the Arab League and the African Union as well the UN. (The only possible advantage is that Kerry would have used the time making a US case for it - which Obama did once he decided.)

So, I would not be so quick to buy the indecisive argument. The only real way to be more decisive is to go it alone.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. It wasn't THREE women, just ONE, Hillary, is all it took.

[karynnj]

21. Why do you have a problkem with this?

First of all, it is the President who has the responsibility to make this decision - and he ultimately will bear the consequences. He will get the blame if it goes badly and he will and should get the praise if it is successful.

The fact is that Obama shifted to support intervention soon after the Arab League called for it. That seems a more likely cause for BOTH Obama and Clinton to have shifted their position. Even from the stories that suggested that Powers, Rice and Clinton persuaded Obama, it was clear that Clinton too shifted her position at most a day or two earlier. Both are now giving reasons that Powers and Rice and Senator Kerry spoke of 3 weeks before.

Would you credit them with changing Hillary Clinton's mind - moving her from the position she had shared with Gates weeks before? I suspect that you would credit Clinton with changing her position as the Arab call for intervention made the desire to give the Arab spring a chance more viable. Even as a member of the John Kerry group, I have not and do not argue that it was his wonderful op-ed and his excellent arguments on a Sunday talk show that changed Clinton's mind - though their existence could have made that more likely - as it is always comforting to know others agree with the difficult choice you are moving to.

Ultimately, I credit Clinton with making her personal decision based on all the factors on the impact on the middle east of each possible position. I also credit President Obama with the SAME ability and interest in doing exactly the same thing. It likely made him more comfortable that Clinton (and Powers, Rice and Kerry) was then in favor of acting, but he knew he was potentially putting his Presidency and, as importantly, his reputation, on the line. There is no way I believe that he just delegated that decision to Clinton - Kerry, Powers and Rice - though he likely valued all their counsel.

[Igel]

11. That reasoning leads to nonsense.

We didn't intervene after we knew what was happening in Rwanda. We didn't intervene in Bosnia until things happened.

Therefore, any time enough people fear there might be a humanitarian calamity we must intervene. Because ultimately no Rwandans were really responsible (how could they be?) Bosnia had no history and therefore we were responsible.

This relies crucially on people's ability to have all the necessary information *and* be able to parse it objectively. We can't even look at two people whispering and let it go: If we like them, if they're in our group, we assume that they're innocent; if we distrust them, if they're not in our group, we assume they're saying bad things about us.

What it boils down to is bombing people based on our fears--not that we'll be attacked, but that someone, somewhere, may do something bad. If enough of the right people are distrustful and fearful of a ruler or government, we feel not merely justified in military action but exceedingly virtuous.

Why limit it to large-scale events. We've had people commit acts of mass murder. We've had people commit acts of isolated or low-number murder. People, as a result, are widely afraid of others. Let's take a vote: If enough of the right people are distrustful and fearful of individuals, shouldn't we feel not just justified in pre-emptive imprisonment and punishment, but downright virtuous? Take a few comments out of context (because we don't need to be objective), consult the right set of fears and anxieties, and hey--what's not justified?


Minority Report, anyone?

Cain was apparently right in his snark: We are our brother's wardens. (I wonder if Obama or Hillary really believes s/he needs a keeper to monitor him/her and intervene before he does anything bad?)

[former9thward]

12. So SOS Clinton is saying we had to do something because

France, UK and the Arab League said we had to. Why didn't they do something? Both France and UK have a sophisticated military who could do the job. The Arab League members have armies sitting around doing nothing. They wanted the U.S. to take the lead because if something were to go wrong they didn't want to 'own' it.

[Clio the Leo]

15. Seriously?

You're kidding right?

UK "Tornado" jets break the siege of Ajdabiya:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370386/Ajdabiya-Libyan-rebels-joy-city-saved-Gaddafis-troops-British-jets.html


French Fighter Jets Attack Air Base of Libya
http://www.worldnewsco.com/4929/french-fighter-jets-attack-air-base-of-libya/


But what no one ELSE has....


(and no, in case you're unsure, that's NOT a UFO)

[former9thward]

16. The U.S. fired almost all of the initial missiles that took out air defenses.

But my point is -- why us? I agree, if you read my post, that both the UK and France have an adequate military to do the job. So go do it. Why involve us when we are in two other wars.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Yes, almost all of the missiles...

.... except the ones the UK and France fired.

As for their inadequacy .... Gadaffi has hardly any tanks left ... thanks to the UK and France.

[former9thward]

18. You have a severe reading problem

Read it again. I said their military was adequate -- not inadequate. So leave us out.

[Clio the Leo]

13. I've noticed that many of those critical of the Libyan involvement...

... are my age or younger ... barely old enough to remember ... or to have understood at the time ... the atrocities that took place in Europe during the Clinton admin. I've known several Bosnians who have come to live in the US and my life has been enriched because of them.

[sudopod]

20. That's funny, considering Rwanda never ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War