Tuesday, September 28, 2021
HomeRecommendedObama’s Libyan Nightmare

Obama’s Libyan Nightmare

The nightmare for us is, Obama’s in charge

Sitting here trying to get my thoughts together on just how badly Obama has handled this Libyan fiasco. And I sit in stunned amazement, as many no doubt do, at how convoluted and idiotic the whole management of the thing has been from start to today. Statements between his White House and State Department that not only offer no clarification, they defy one to even know who exactly is in charge of the Executive Branch in the United States today.

The chronology is so messed up; I can’t even make any sense of it. One would need to keep an hourly diary of all the actions and inactions, the statements and misstatements from the very beginning to today to even begin to see a bigger picture; a picture of ineptitude and incompetitance that leads one to believe the students are in charge of Professor Obama’s classroom.

Where to even begin?

First, the uprisings

It started with the Tunisia uprisings or revolution, an event that frankly as it happened just before the Christmas holiday I took no notice of whatsoever until the riots and chaos in Egypt ignited. To this, Obama was largely silent but to issue vague appeals for all parties to “keep calm and avoid violence“. He was criticized for being mostly silent about the protests, no doubt thinking the US wasn’t paying much attention anyway.

Egypt got his attention, and also his ambiguous statements such as It is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances, No kidding?

With Obama calling for “orderly transition” on the one hand, and his Press Secretary saying “Now means now” on the other, US foreign policy became amateur hour on display for the whole world to marvel at.

Libyan Uprising; Time to be a leader – or not

As civil war in Libya began to intensify into violence against civilians, Obama offered strong statements, but no clear direction or concise answers as to what role the US would take. He said the US would only be actively involved militarily for “days, not weeks“, but then his administration just today announces the “…international operation could last months…“. Defense Secretary Gates was asked if the US military involvement could possibly last until year’s end, he replied; “I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that.” Of course not! Nobody in the Obama White House is programmed to think beyond the next sound bite.

And the military objectives for US forces? Also lacking;

In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?

Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.

This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.

As times for leaving GITMO have come and gone, and his “18 months” for a retreat from Afghanistan are fast approaching, one has to wonder if he ever says anything he means? Does he just say whatever pops into his head at that moment?

On the latter, obviously not, or TotUS would be out of a job.

The nightmare for Obama?

He’s in charge.

[UPDATE] NATO has agreed with Obama, that he shouldn’t be in charge either. So now War by Committee is a better Commander in Chief than our own. Nice…

Erick Brockwayhttp://www.erickbrockway.com
Work seven days a week at two jobs, a newly RETIRED EO1 (E6) in the Navy Reserves (Seabees), blog when I can from cellphone and computer. @erickbrockway #catcot #tcot Currently living in Camarillo, CA, about 45 miles North of LA. I have a wife (20+ years) son, and two daughters.

10 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

10 COMMENTS

  1. The whole Libya thing is in such a shambles, and our Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State can’t even keep their stories straight-

    “On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates was asked, “Is Libya in our vital interest as a country?” He answered, “No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the U.S., but we clearly have interests there, and it’s a part of the region which is a vital interest for the U.S.” Gates’ statement wasn’t an entirely convincing rationale for a major military commitment, and moderator David Gregory responded by saying, “I think a lot of people would hear that and say well, that’s quite striking — not in our vital interests and yet we’re committing military resources.”

    At that moment, Clinton jumped in to offer an extended justification for going to war. “Did Libya attack us?” she asked. “No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries — you just mentioned one, Egypt, the other Tunisia — that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration?”

    At that point, Clinton suggested that the U.S. went to war to repay NATO allies for support in Afghanistan. “We asked our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us ten years ago,” she said. “They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact that they were not attacked. The attack came on us…They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies…This was in their vital national interest…”

    So Gates says no it isn’t in out national interest, but maybe it is. Clinton says yes it is in our national interest because our NATO allies went to Afghanistan with us 10 years ago, and we owed the UK, France and Italy some payback. Obama says we are not in charge, but the NATO commander is an American, and we have sent more military assets to the region than any other country. Angela Merkel says Germany will be pulling back and out, because no one knows what is going on there.

    That’s what Obama gets for listening to his three beeitches, Rice, Clinton and Powers, and the UN. At least the Keystone cops were entertaining.

    • Gates was scared to say what was on his mind; oil! Just what ‘Bama needs, his leftist pals screaming “No Blood for Oil” at him.
      The ONE revolution Obama really needed to back was the one that almost sparked in Iran, and he got all Professor-ly on us and stood back.
      Wait for the nukes now…

  2. Great post, Erick. I think Libya is tied to all the other upheavals in the Middle East. They are not random, nor spontaneous, and certainly not democracy driven, unless you consider democracy as the Soviet bloc considered it, demokratik republik.

    If there is a common thread running through all these upheavals, the it is far more likely that Obama has been read in on them, and approves, than Hillary. I think she’s the odd-man out here

  3. Great read, and I appreciate your care in presenting a timeline. Naturally, one never relies on the Democrat Media for basic information and especially not solid facts as they occur. Good work!

  4. Hillz was interviewed by Diane Sawyer a couple days ago and was asked the question if she was the person who convinced Obama to start the foray. She was extremely uncomfortable, stuttering and moving her head back and forth.

    She never directly answered the question however who left with the impression there was no doubt she did.

  1. The whole Libya thing is in such a shambles, and our Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State can’t even keep their stories straight-

    “On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates was asked, “Is Libya in our vital interest as a country?” He answered, “No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the U.S., but we clearly have interests there, and it’s a part of the region which is a vital interest for the U.S.” Gates’ statement wasn’t an entirely convincing rationale for a major military commitment, and moderator David Gregory responded by saying, “I think a lot of people would hear that and say well, that’s quite striking — not in our vital interests and yet we’re committing military resources.”

    At that moment, Clinton jumped in to offer an extended justification for going to war. “Did Libya attack us?” she asked. “No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries — you just mentioned one, Egypt, the other Tunisia — that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration?”

    At that point, Clinton suggested that the U.S. went to war to repay NATO allies for support in Afghanistan. “We asked our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us ten years ago,” she said. “They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact that they were not attacked. The attack came on us…They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies…This was in their vital national interest…”

    So Gates says no it isn’t in out national interest, but maybe it is. Clinton says yes it is in our national interest because our NATO allies went to Afghanistan with us 10 years ago, and we owed the UK, France and Italy some payback. Obama says we are not in charge, but the NATO commander is an American, and we have sent more military assets to the region than any other country. Angela Merkel says Germany will be pulling back and out, because no one knows what is going on there.

    That’s what Obama gets for listening to his three beeitches, Rice, Clinton and Powers, and the UN. At least the Keystone cops were entertaining.

    • Gates was scared to say what was on his mind; oil! Just what ‘Bama needs, his leftist pals screaming “No Blood for Oil” at him.
      The ONE revolution Obama really needed to back was the one that almost sparked in Iran, and he got all Professor-ly on us and stood back.
      Wait for the nukes now…

  2. Great post, Erick. I think Libya is tied to all the other upheavals in the Middle East. They are not random, nor spontaneous, and certainly not democracy driven, unless you consider democracy as the Soviet bloc considered it, demokratik republik.

    If there is a common thread running through all these upheavals, the it is far more likely that Obama has been read in on them, and approves, than Hillary. I think she’s the odd-man out here

  3. Great read, and I appreciate your care in presenting a timeline. Naturally, one never relies on the Democrat Media for basic information and especially not solid facts as they occur. Good work!

  4. Hillz was interviewed by Diane Sawyer a couple days ago and was asked the question if she was the person who convinced Obama to start the foray. She was extremely uncomfortable, stuttering and moving her head back and forth.

    She never directly answered the question however who left with the impression there was no doubt she did.

Must Read