Lybia, Obama, Al Qaeda.. Toughts?

[DeletedUser]

Here is an article from the washington post for those of you who may not have read it already.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4d69f04-146f-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html
I want everyone's informed opinion about what could have been done differently, how does this effect your views of the president?, and of course who's story do you believe... Obama's or the posts?

 

[DeletedUser]

This may or may not pertain to the discussion at hand, but the person who wrote that article is a conservative and opposes Obama.

 

[DeletedUser]

Biggest problem for Obama: if you're in leadership, one of your responsibilities to your organization is to make sure your ducks are in a row and quacking together (metaphorically speaking, of course). That way, people outside your organization get a common message. Otherwise, your message becomes confusing.
Too many different people in the administration are saying different things, and the conclusion that will be drawn in these circumstances is that there is a cover-up (even when there isn't one). When the Secretary of State and the UN Ambassador are giving out conflicting information, that is a problem--if any two people in the administration are on the same page, it should be them!
Not enough information in the public to make a conclusion, and the information that is needed to make the conclusions would likely be classified, so the public is now stuck in the land of confusion on the issue.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah, because nothing reeks of a cover up when everyone gives an identical, rehearsed and dismissive response keefer

I do think the article is quite questionable though. If a country has a new government and fears terrorists may have used the chaos of the transition period to get a foot in the door, in numbers as small as a "few hundred", having an ambassador lobby and monitor the new government doesn't seem too unreasonable a solution. Whether or not anyone's willing to admit funding affected the decision, the lack off additional security was the big blue in my eyes.

 

[DeletedUser]

This may or may not pertain to the discussion at hand, but the person who wrote that article is a conservative and opposes Obama.

I understand the writer of the article opposes Obama, and indeed that does pertain to this discussion, however it seems to me that bias or not the article raises doubt for Obama's administration. I mean how is it that, if this is truly the case, part of the administration of the president of this country can sit back and view an attack on us soil (embassy) in real time and not do something to answer the military units on the grounds cries for reinforcement? It is a troubling thought.. this was no black op.. these men where not secretly placed somewhere, they where guarding a US post.. They should have got the support they asked for, in my opinion, whatever the consequences or fall out may be. Are we to assume then, that just like this, any United States embassy any where in the world can be attacked and president Obama will do nothing about it?

 

[DeletedUser]

I understand the writer of the article opposes Obama, and indeed that does pertain to this discussion, however it seems to me that bias or not the article raises doubt for Obama's administration. I mean how is it that, if this is truly the case, part of the administration of the president of this country can sit back and view an attack on us soil (embassy) in real time and not do something to answer the military units on the grounds cries for reinforcement? It is a troubling thought.. this was no black op.. these men where not secretly placed somewhere, they where guarding a US post.. They should have got the support they asked for, in my opinion, whatever the consequences or fall out may be. Are we to assume then, that just like this, any United States embassy any where in the world can be attacked and president Obama will do nothing about it?

Wait, what? What do you expect Obama to do, teleport troops into Libya? As I understand it the debate of whether the embassy was properly staffed was a long term question, held with the benefit of hindsight; short term no-one could have done anything to have reinforcements reach the embassy in a matter of hours/minutes. The drone that was capturing footage allegedly did not reach the embassy until the last hour of the conflict anyway, no-one (especially the president) was sitting back and watching mercilessly "in real time" until it was far, far too late...

 

[DeletedUser]

True, our troops would not have made it in time.. but to my understanding our country declared war on terrorism and any nation that harbored said terrorist. So why then, have we not mounted an offensive and shaken Libya to its core til we found the ppl responsible wherever they are just as we did Afghanistan? Yes it took time, but we got Bin Laden... I don't believe we should just be sitting back like our hands are tied.. yes I know foreign relations with the middle east are stressed because of this kind of attitude.. however frankly there has not been anything similar to a lasting peace in the middle east with the rest of the world since the crusades anyways so their opinion matters not in my opinion. Yes I realize many people disagree with that point of view, but honestly.. why be nice and care about their nations sovereignty when they wouldn't give us a seconds hesitation if they had the power to wipe us off the map... Got a bit off topic with that statement... What I meant more or less is we should act with or without Libya's aide and approval to hunt down those Al Qaeda members responsible.

 

[DeletedUser3]

This may or may not pertain to the discussion at hand, but the person who wrote that article is a conservative and opposes Obama.

Indeed, a longstanding conservative who opposes Obama. An important point is likewise that the article is posted on her blog. Washington Post hosts a multitude of blogs, of which they take no responsibility for the presented content. So, it's "not" the Post's article, it's a blog. All blogs should be taken with a bucket of salt (a grain is insufficient).

 

[DeletedUser]

True, our troops would not have made it in time.. but to my understanding our country declared war on terrorism and any nation that harbored said terrorist. So why then, have we not mounted an offensive and shaken Libya to its core til we found the ppl responsible wherever they are just as we did Afghanistan? Yes it took time, but we got Bin Laden... I don't believe we should just be sitting back like our hands are tied.. yes I know foreign relations with the middle east are stressed because of this kind of attitude.. however frankly there has not been anything similar to a lasting peace in the middle east with the rest of the world since the crusades anyways so their opinion matters not in my opinion. Yes I realize many people disagree with that point of view, but honestly.. why be nice and care about their nations sovereignty when they wouldn't give us a seconds hesitation if they had the power to wipe us off the map... Got a bit off topic with that statement... What I meant more or less is we should act with or without Libya's aide and approval to hunt down those Al Qaeda members responsible.

Why wouldn't we go to war with Libya? You almost answered that yourself:
1) "Many people disagree with that point of view". It would make absolutely no sense for Obama to declare war based upon a minority and conservative viewpoint.
2) "Yes I know foreign relations with the middle east are stressed". Entering another war there could compromise other ongoing missions were it to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
3) Wars cost money, money we do not have when the U.S. is currently trillions of dollars in debt, thanks heavily to such previous wars.
4) If you act without Libya's approval, you're committing an act of war. That'd be rather hypocritical given we just spent six months using military force to establish this new government.

 

[DeletedUser]

Since they are a government we helped to establish then it stands to reason they would not oppose the idea of letting our special forces take out the threat.. A terrorist cell inside their country could pose a huge threat to a U.S. friendly regime. Yes wars do cost money, yes our financial standings are terrible, however that being said... if we sit back and do nothing our financial standings will be the least of our worries. Failure to act will be seen as weakness on our part by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, more attacks against us would probably follow as a result, and stand to further weaken our economy as the average investor and the oil market will grow panicky... places in the middle east we have worked so hard to reestablish such as Iraq and Afghanistan will suffer as the terrorist already there grow emboldened by our lack of action. Hellstromm normally I would agree, blogs should be taken with "a bucket of salt," however when the administration can't even get their own story straight when confronted with the said " bucket of salt" it seems to me they are just making one new lie to cover another and can't decide which lie is best to stick to. I don't disagree with the fact that it is biased, nor do I believe whole heartedly that the whole truth has been stated by either side.. who can really say for sure what happened except the people that aren't talking? All I'm saying is "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Does it not bother the American public that we are constantly being lied to and mislead by one administration or another for their own selfish needs?? What happened to doing what was best for the country and democracy world wide? What happened to we the people?? Fact is we are being lead along like sheep by both parties and no one seems to care about the men and women on the ground who lose their lives, and for what?? Its starting to look like for nothing. If we don't stand behind our principals, moral convictions, and our country men then what have all these sons of America been dying for??? Are we just supposed to call of a supposed war on terror because another president and party got elected? Has everyone forgotten what caused that war in the first place?? Is our country so divided... I mean bucket of salt or not.. at the bottom of that bucket the fact remains that armed forces invaded an American embassy, American Soil, and we aren't doing a dang thing about it because of politics.. oh and money which we can always seem to find for everything else but defense... and teachers but that's another topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

No: fairly sure the U.S. burning it's bridges with Libya, going to war, increasing the trillion dollar debt exponentially then finally declaring bankruptcy is going to be worse both economically and militarily

Though you do raise an interesting point. In Libya, Obama supported the rebels, saw the dictatorship overthrown and the following "growth of terrorism". On one hand Romney is saying naughty democrats, you need to be tough on terrorism, on the other hand he supports the exact same policy for Syria. Romney proposes we wait until we can determine who is apparently "on our side", then arm them and await al-Assad to be overthrown. I wonder if he'll step up and accept the blame when terrorists gain a foot through the door during the chaos of transition period and burn an embassy...

 

[DeletedUser]

Since they are a government we helped to establish then it stands to reason they would not oppose the idea of letting our special forces take out the threat.

So, the United States should allow French special forces to conduct operations on American soil. Not sure that one's gonna fly.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Hi DC, at the core of your argument is a flaw. The war on terror was a ruse, a smokescreen, an opportunistic angle exploited by the neocon movement of the Bush Jr era. The attack on Afghanistan was a ploy, as was the attack on Iraq. Both were proposed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other neocons in the White House "before" 9/11. It must also be pointed out that Al Qaeida didn't "just happen without provocation." It was the "money motivated" attack on Iraq during Bush Sr's era that birthed it. Not because of our attack of Iraq back then, but because of the "deal" posed between the U.S. and the monarchy that still subjugates the citizens of Saudi Arabia. The deal that allowed us to pose a permanent U.S. military base in that country and other "deals" that strengthened the monarchy's hold on that country (there were other factors, of course, but these were the catalysts that pulled Bin Ladin off his stately lounge chair and into dusty caves, therein birthing Al Qaeida).

The facts are, our reaction to 9/11 fell right into the hopes of Bin Ladin --- a large scale conflict on "their" soil that would not only hurt us economically and undermine us socially, but serve as fuel for their recruiting efforts and live targets to train against. Indeed, our foolish entry into Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and then our dismissing all the Iraqi military/police, substantially increased the numbers of terrorists as well as provided not only access to arms, but seasoned professionals into their ranks. With these and other actions, we turned Al Qaeida from less than a thousand poorly trained sheepherders into over a million well-trained guerilla soldiers.

Ultimately, what took out Bin Ladin was a small team of elite soldiers acting on information obtained from an informant, not 200,000 U.S military personnel.

So do understand why I hesitate to see the logic in your (and the blogger's) recommending we waltz our sons and daughters into yet another hostile territory to root out the persons responsible for the attack on our embassy in Libya. Just as in the case of Bin Ladin, such a proposal is akin to sending a bunch of kids to find a needle in a viper pit.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wonder if he'll step up and accept the blame when terrorists gain a foot through the door during the chaos of transition period and burn an embassy...

Why wait to see whether he will or not? If the president that is currently in office would simply react strongly than perhaps they wouldn't attempt to burn the next embassy :razz:. urther more, yes you raise an excellent point about the whole bankruptcy situation, however the US is not going to just simply go bankrupt and stop working. There are to many countries with to much faith in the US. This is why they keep lending and allowing us to run up a debt.. because in the end we are still a good investment. Im not saying we should just continue on mindlessly... we do need some kind of reform. However I still believe some kind of reaction is necessary. Am I to understand Diggo that you would rather sit back and not respond to Al Qaeda?

To the comment about french special forces.. I'm pretty sure if we just all out burnt a french embassy they would call for some kind of co-operative to apprehend the american movement responsible and, rightly so, fairly certain or government would oblige them.. This is not something likely to happen however therefor barely merits a thought in my opinion... i don't see americans storming an embassy of another sovereign nation, and i don't see local law enforcement allowing it.

Hell I understand your argument that it was all a rouse and that we played right into Al Qaeda's hopes. Even Bin Laden himself had been reported as saying he wanted to draw us in and cause a financial collapse. That being said, the whole world is in a tough economic climate, not just the US, we are not however still in some great recession. Granted our financial standing is not what it should be, yet, but we are not past a breaking point nor do i believe we will hit one.
I believe once you start a war, whatever the reason, you should finish it. Whether that means a win or a loss.. of course we would all rather see a win. Anyways, if we continue to balk in the face of Al Qaeda attacks they will soon be on a massive offensive more or less wherever they can strike a victory. Would all of you rather withdraw from the middle east and instead let them bring the fight here like they did on the twin towers??? or would you rather stay on their ground, keep them occupied, and counter their resistance to reform there??
Unfortunately I do not believe this is a war with an end, no matter what we do they will hate us, they will fight us... the only thing we can hope to control is where the battles are fought.. peace in the middle east has been forever illusive. Make no mistakes if we completely pull back and even remove everyone from all of our embassys over there soon they will move offensively over here.

 

[Liberty]

This may or may not pertain to the discussion at hand, but the person who wrote that article is a conservative and opposes Obama.

Hi, Daniel, and all.

I would like to point out that no, Ms. Rubin is NOT a conservative. She is a neoconservative, which is almost a polar opposite of a real conservative. She used to work for William Kristol at The Weekly Standard. It was Bill's father who coined the term, neoconservative, and the original ones were basically former lovers of Trotsky who used to be in think tanks. They came into the Republican Party with Reagan, but weren't in high political positions, until Dubya. They saw an opportunity to infiltrate and take over the conservative movement and they did it. You really can't make this stuff up. Irving Kristol even wrote a book about it (Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea).

The real conservatives were re-labeled, paleoconservatives. Real conservatism (paleocons) is "libertarian-conservative" in nature. It's all about limited-government, the Constitution, states' rights (ie. the 10th amendment), individual liberty, a strong national defense (not offense), personal privacy and personal responsibility. As you can see, neoconservatism is nothing like that.

So, now you know why there is very little difference in Obama's and Romney's foreign policy. Neither have much of anything to do with providing our own national security. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

 

[Liberty]

I believe once you start a war, whatever the reason, you should finish it. Whether that means a win or a loss.. of course we would all rather see a win.

That is what the Soviet Union thought too and it bankrupted them. We really should study history more, so we don't have to repeat this stuff.

Anyways, if we continue to balk in the face of Al Qaeda attacks they will soon be on a massive offensive more or less wherever they can strike a victory. Would all of you rather withdraw from the middle east and instead let them bring the fight here like they did on the twin towers??? or would you rather stay on their ground, keep them occupied, and counter their resistance to reform there??

Here's the fallacy of what you are saying. The fact that we are bombing, overthrowing their governments and occupying their countries, has proven to be a huge recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Makes sense doesn't it? Tell me, if another country's government started bombing the U.S. and accidentally or not, killed some of your family and friends, drove tanks in our streets and overthrew our government and put in a puppet of their choosing, would it kind of tick you off? Would you then consider joining a group to fight them, that you never would have considered joining before?

Bottom line, our actions are increasing their ranks.

Unfortunately I do not believe this is a war with an end, no matter what we do they will hate us, they will fight us... the only thing we can hope to control is where the battles are fought.. peace in the middle east has been forever illusive. Make no mistakes if we completely pull back and even remove everyone from all of our embassys over there soon they will move offensively over here.

Oh, it will have an end. When it becomes public knowledge that we are completely bankrupt; our dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency and other countries will no longer loan us money. That is happening right now. The jig is almost up.

The USSR fell because of their warmongering for empire. We are not exempt from this, either.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Here's the fallacy of what you are saying. The fact that we are bombing, overthrowing their governments and occupying their countries, has proven to be a huge recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Makes sense doesn't it? Tell me, if another country's government started bombing the U.S. and accidentally or not, killed some of your family and friends, drove tanks in our streets and overthrew our government and put in a puppet of their choosing, would it kind of tick you off? Would you then consider joining a group to fight them, that you never would have considered joining before?

I find the fact that that was the same gripe people had with Bush, a bit err ironic...we have had Obama now for 4 years, whose policy is vastly different, and yet we still have the same problem. Doesn't that then beg the question, that maybe you are wrong?

And actually, in many ways I agree with DC's comments. This is one of the reasons I don't agree with giving Syria a dime, or a heart beat. Look at Egypt, Lybia, and Iraq. The people went from one monster to another...what did we solve? Not a darn thing. And now we have crazy idealists to contend with, which for us is far worse than a dictator.

 

[Liberty]

I find the fact that that was the same gripe people had with Bush, a bit err ironic...we have had Obama now for 4 years, whose policy is vastly different, and yet we still have the same problem. Doesn't that then beg the question, that maybe you are wrong?

Hardly. Why would you think we would have a different problem when the foreign policy is virtually the same? It's not vastly different at all. Which is why so many neoconservatives are quite happy with Obama.

And actually, in many ways I agree with DC's comments. This is one of the reasons I don't agree with giving Syria a dime, or a heart beat. Look at Egypt, Lybia, and Iraq. The people went from one monster to another...what did we solve? Not a darn thing. And now we have crazy idealists to contend with, which for us is far worse than a dictator.

Yes, I totally agree. But, then again, I would end ALL foreign aid. Every penny.

 

[DeletedUser3]

Obama was left with the chore of extricating ourselves from unsavory activities initiated during the Bush administration. In many cases he's moved too slow, in others just slow enough to ensure extrication doesn't create new problems. When you enter into a country and essentially replace their military/police, you cannot readily extricate yourself on a dime. It takes time, and training of local replacements. Obama has effectively removed the U.S. from Iraq and is doing so with Afghanistan. But to think our leaving the scene removes the hostilities, I'm sorry but damage is done and the children of the noncombatant victims we killed and wrote off as "collateral damage" during the Bush administration are growing up, armed and pissed.

 

[DeletedUser34]

In many ways I agree with you (chokes)
But, 9/11 happened in 01....hardly enough time to cause the middle east to be mad at his (Bush) politics....And in reality, 9/11 was the success story for their mindset, not the beginning. It was in fact the second attempt yes? So, back to my point...how can we blame Bush? It was in the works long before he took office. With that fact in mind, how can anyone expect silence and tip toeing around to actually prove effective?