Libya Is Another Victory For The Obama Doctrine

[Tx4obama]

SNIP

Since President Obama has taken office, there has been much written about the differences between the Bush and Obama doctrines. Libya is providing the starkest contrast yet between the two. The Bush mantra of spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun has been replaced by democracies of the world standing together to promote democratic values and encourage the organic popular spread of liberation from tyranny. Bush had all the rhetoric, but it has been Obama who has overseen the spread of democracy through the Arab world.

The Obama Doctrine is based on the idea that you can’t transplant democracy. It must be encouraged and grown organically. Obama’s views go against everything the neo-conservative right stands for, but his willingness to use force has also earned him the wrath of the some on the left.

As Sarah Jones wrote, “In Libya, Obama, refusing to call the intervention a war, provoked the far Left even though he had the support of allies, the UN Security Council and Arab League. Certainly the far Left has reason to be war-weary and intervention-hyper alert after Bush’s disastrous Iraq invasion, but while it’s easy to see current situations in light of the past, it isn’t always accurate. This is akin to judging your current partner based on what your last partner did to you (which most likely wasn’t good or they would be a current partner). As humans, we are all prone to this sort of pre-emptive fear, but in politics as in life, the current situation is not necessarily the same as the last.”

Obama could be accurately characterized as both pro-peace and pro-regime change. The Obama definition of regime change is different from the shudder inducing definition of the Bush years. It is not based on American politics, or feeding private contractors billions of dollars. Obama is an idealist who wants his country to work with other democracies to bring freedom to those oppressed by tyranny.

SNIP

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/libya-obama-doctrine

[ClarkUSA]

1. Thanks for the sane and intelligent analysis. Bookmarked.

:thumbsup:

[Historic NY]

2. K&R

[boppers]

3. I like the "past relationship" metaphor.

It helps explain a lot... not just with foreign policy, but with issues of taxation, debt control, education policy, surveillance, unions, ....

People were so used to being abused that people are, quite naturally, hyper-vigilant, like those suffering PTSD.... still reliving things that will take years and years to process through (and in some cases, may never recover from).

[bhikkhu]

6. Still reliving - like all those here who were certain Libya would be Iraq

...and no amount of presidential reassurance could overcome the cynicism and mistrust.

I think Libya is definitely a high-water mark in many ways, from the subtle application of military aid to the tipping points of the situation, to the effective coordination of our efforts with those of the other NATO nations involved, to the absolute care that was involved in keeping the Libyans themselves front and center in the effort, and in charge at the end.

So many things could have gone wrong, like in the Bin Laden raid, it seems like some kind of mastery behind the success.

[boppers]

13. Know anyone/any creature with PTSD?

"Cynicism" is a bit of a harsh word in that context.... perhaps a better way of thinking about it is an "ingrained, subconscious, animalistic fear of future trauma".

Put another way, a cynic has a choice they can make, but those who have suffered through trauma do not always have that choice available to them.

On a profoundly basic, animal, level: a dog regularly beaten by rolls of magazines doesn't care if the person with the magazine is holding a copy of a PeTA mag, or a copy of "Guns and Ammo".... it's still a person holding a magazine.

To share a *really* personal bit about myself, I fear galvanized metal buckets, and corrugated sheet metal (along with other things). It's not like I run screaming from a place if I see it.... but 25 years (!) after my abuse stopped, if I see either, I make redundant exit plans (one is not enough), and start tracking everybody around me for *ANY* possible symptoms of impending violence, erratic behavior, loud speaking, fast movements, etc.

It's a gut instinct, with no decent basis in rational thought, and adrenaline surges come along with it.

Over sheet metal and buckets, for fucks sake.

I can't control it happening, the best I've been able to do is make my plans, carry on, and (if I go to the place enough) learn to trust the place a bit more, because I already know my plans.

[bhikkhu]

18. Not well...

Had I thought a little more, I wouldn't have used "cynicism" as something related.

Thanks for the clear description.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

5. The Libyans in Benghazi WERE in imminent danger when Gadhafi went on TV and ....

said that he was going to massacre the people that lived in Benghazi.
650,000 people live in Benghazi and the world could not sit back and watch them be killed by a mad-man dictator.
The Libyans requested help from the UN to install the no-fly-zone.

I for one am glad the that US, France, UK, etc went to the aide of the Libyan people!

[bhikkhu]

7. What if...

the Libyans are in charge of their destinies, and breath the free air at the moment. They have the opportunity, and nothing more than that.

It is a very good sign that they have a constitution prepared, which is supposed to be quite liberal in its form, on European models. Hope for the best, but of course its not for us to dictate the outcome.

[AngkorWot]

12. lol

[applegrove]

8. And I bet the Libyans will not dismantle and fire the army like Bush did to the Baathists in Iraq,

starting a civil war.

[boppers]

9. I think you're mixing apples and oranges.

Baathists were a political party, and an ideology, not a military force. Bush didn't fire the army, he fired the Baathists... but being a Baathist was pretty much a *requirement* for military service in Iraq.

OTOH, the Libyans know that the military mix was comprised of loyalists and people "just like them", only "loyalists" on paper (as the widely publicized defection stories demonstrated). The Libyans will rip a lot of people out of the military, effectively dismantling its current state, but it probably won't be "all people who swore loyalty".

[applegrove]

10. My point is that they will not make the same mistake and have hundreds of thousands

of unemployed soldiers with no hope for the future. That was the mistake.

[boppers]

11. Limited amnesty offered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576351492261311076.html

[Whisp]

14. K&R

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. K&R (nt)

[_ed_]

17. I hate to throw a turd in the punch bowl,

but what was the Constitutional or legal justification for this war?

And would you be comfortable with a future President Romney or Bachmann or Perry claiming such war powers?

[Tx4obama]

19. We did not 'go to war'. The USA was part of the UN mission to install a No-Fly-Zone ...

in order to protect innocent civilians.

Participating in a five month no-fly-zone mission with other countries - is not 'declaring war'.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. Boy does that ever sound familiar.

Tell me - how do you square Predator drones slaughtering innocents in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

[Vattel]

23. complete nonsense

NATO did a lot more to help the rebels win than just protect civilians. We participated in a revolutionary war, and we did it unconstitutionally and illegally. Obama drove the last nail in the coffin of Congress's exclusive right to create war.

[Ikonoklast]

28. I agree, complete nonsense.

Your post, that is.

[Vattel]

29. You don't think NATO was aiding the rebels? Really?

[_ed_]

31. I'd love you hear your specific legal

reason for why you think this. Do you have one, or do you just support war reflexively when a Democrat does it?

Would you be comfortable with Pres. Bachmann possessing this unilateral power to take America to war?

[_ed_]

30. You should tell the Air Force pilots that flew over Libya

that they "weren't in a war." They were just bombing another sovereign country.

Do you have any actual international law or Constitutional law to justify what you claim?

The War Powers Act gives the President a set number of days to wage limited war without Congressional approval. Obama blew past that limit without consulting Congress, in clear violation of the War Powers Act.

Not to even mention the war clauses of the Constitution itself.

You didn't answer my question: Would you be comfortable with Pres. Bachmann or Pres. Romney or Pres. Perry claiming this power?

[SpartanDem]

21. How is this different than Bosonia?

I don't remember any cries about it being illegeal

[_ed_]

32. There are many differences

Regardless, let's say Bosnia was also done illegally. Why would that matter at all? We're discussing actual Constitutional power to wage war regardless of whether or not it was done in the past. It's like a murder suspect citing other murderers that happened to get off as proof that they are innocent.

[former9thward]

22. "it has been Obama who has overseen the spread of democracy through the Arab world."

There is not one Arab state that is even remotely democratic. Please name the Arab country that Obama made democratic.

[swilton]

25. Who gets to define what democracy is

certainly it is not the people of these countries whose leaders NATO forces help to overthrow.

[former9thward]

27. You use the term "countries" about NATO forces.

There was only one country NATO had any involvement in. Libya. I define democracy as it is commonly used in the U.S. and other representative democracies. Just because someone says they are democratic does not mean anything. Dictatorships like the Soviet Union said they were democratic.

[opihimoimoi]

24. The GOPers are in a coma...Silence of the Lambs

[swilton]

26. Very premature to call this a victory

even for the Libyan rebel forces much less the people of Libya...