Obama official: “It’s not designed to have Qaddafi go. That’s not the purpose,”

[Clio the Leo]

Obama: A ‘Focused’ Mission in Libya

President Obama today demanded that Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi suspend attacks against rebels or face military repercussions. He issued a blunt ultimatum to Qaddafi to cease attacks against rebels opposing his regime or face enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolution “through military action.” The terms of a cessation, Obama said, must include the halting of the advance on Benghazi, and the pulling back of forces from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya.

<snip>

Obama warned that failure to follow through on the resolution would mean “the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.” But he was clear to add that the “focused” international humanitarian mission would not include American ground troops. “And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal: specifically the protection of civilians in Libya,” Obama said. Indeed, senior administration officials are already leaking (anonymously) to the likes of CNN that the no-fly zone could be ‘canceled’ if Qaddafi pulls back — setting up a scenario where the West would allow Qaddafi to stay in power:

This official, who spoke on background because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue, said that “right now, we’re focused on stopping the violence.”

Clinton said Friday, “The first and overwhelming urgent action is to end the violence. And we have to see a clear set of decisions that are operationalized on the ground by Gadhafi’s forces to move physically a significant distance away from the east, where they have been pursuing their campaign against the opposition.”

The purpose of the no-fly zone, the administration official said, is to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people.

“It’s not designed to have him go. That’s not the purpose,” the official said. “The purpose of the military action is to prevent massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the violence stops, then you shouldn’t leap to say then the military action will continue until he leaves.”

The ultimate aim of U.S. policy, the administration official said, remains to force Gadhafi step down. But to accomplish that, the administration’s strategy hinges on “sequencing.”

“There are a lot of different measures,” the official said. “If you have a cease-fire in place that is verifiable, then you can continue turning the noose without taking necessarily further action. What we’re trying to do is freeze his advance. And then work from there to what was the original call, which was that he has lost legitimacy and he needs to go. But you have to sequence it.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262516/obama-focused-mission-libya-daniel-foster

[dkf]

1. This feels like a bad idea.

Sigh.

[vaberella]

6. For me as well.

I appreciate the president is trying to stay out of this situation as much as possible. Another war is not my idea of fun and this could end up just like that. But I do have some faith in his abilities. I'm not liking the left who are calling for military intervention. That's just wrong and totally disgusts me. We're trying to stop two wars and they're calling for a third.

[Clio the Leo]

11. it just FEELS bad huh?

what makes you FEEL that way? I FELT bad too .... and then I read. Now I dont FEEL so bad.

[dkf]

17. Once we get involved who knows. What's that saying about the best of intentions?

[Clio the Leo]

18. Well, for one, Obama knows.....

... and his administration knows and not long after that, the press will know and then you and I will know .... 'cause we'll read.

[golfguru]

31. Why there are 50,000 troops still in Iraq?

Why is GITMO still open?
Why are we wasting money in Afghanistan when all Al Qaeda are safely
ensconced in Pakistan?
Why are you so confident Libya will be short and cheap?

[David__77]

2. That's why the warmongers will still be angry with Obama.

The US perspective is not support regime change in Libya, but rather to support conditions under which civilian casualties will be limited. In some respects, this creates adverse circumstances for the opposition armed forces, because the status quo is not most favorable. I do believe Obama on his word about this, though I would have preferred for the US not to vote for the UN proposal as it was written. I'm not totally critical by any means.

[Clio the Leo]

12. It's becoming very clear after all I've read tonight...

.... that we pretty much wrote the proposal.

Be sure to also read...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x632627

[ProSense]

3. National Review

would love to see an Iraq-style regime change become the goal, ground troops and all.

Here is the CNN article.

[vaberella]

8. The left is on the same page for another reason.

This is just a problem.

[RoccoR5955]

4. Why is there ALWAYS money for war, but there is NEVER money for WE THE PEOPLE? n/t

[vaberella]

9. This isn't supposed to be a war.

This is just an implementation of a no-fly zone. And you should talk to many on the left who want this---this is mainly advocated from the professional left. In any event, this isn't in a war---not yet anyway. It's just implementing a few threats to get Gaddafi off the backs of the citizens who he's killing.

[Clio the Leo]

13. aided by the French and the UK's fighter jets...

.... dont have any illusions Vabs ... military vehicles will be in use .... they just (apparently) wont be ours.

[vaberella]

15. As they shouldn't be.

We really aren't supposed to be involved in any way in this, since we have no real dealings or connection to Libya except for some Americans who were taken out of Libya. This was always supposed to be about Europe and Europe getting involved if anyone was to get involved. But it seemed that Europe was willing to let innocent lives die as long as they still go their oil. I'm glad Obama got them to move----Merkel managed to stand her ground---the wench.

[Clio the Leo]

19. yeah but sadly or otherwise, that's not how the UN works. nt

[RoccoR5955]

40. As long as the military is involved in firing weapons, I call it war! n/t

[Youth Uprising]

42. No, it's not.

This is not being advocated by "the professional left". This being advocated by neoliberal, administration suck ups.

[woolldog]

5. sounds like an open ended mission then?

If Q doesn't go, then how long will the international community have to enforce a no fly zone over Libya. This could go on for 10+ years.

[vaberella]

7. That's not it. It's not about him going.

Ugh..the President said what it's about. However, I think what the President and most of the International leaders are hoping for is that the push for liberty is strong enough in Libya as it was in Egypt and Tunisia for a successful turn over. Without needing to prolong the no-fly zone or having the international community coming in as they are already.

[woolldog]

23. If Q stays in power

He will retaliate. There's no question. And he will do so in a way that a noflyzone won't be able to stop. And if he does withdraw when do we stop the noflyzone? And who's to say that once we roll it back, he won't take advantage of that? So the only option would be to continue enforcing a noflyzone until he's no longer in power, which is why this seems like an open ended mission and a bad idea as currently framed.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Well, ya know if EGYPT wanted to help arm the rebels....

... or the Saudis or whomever....

http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE72H0N120110318

[woolldog]

24. That will take years and years to be effective

This is an open ended ambiguous mission if Q stays in power.

Arming rebels to fight against the govt = long drawn out civil war. Think Afghanistan and the Russians, the contras etc

[sad sally]

30. That's the way we like military interventions - long and protracted.

Don't forget, our number one manufacturing is making weapons. Think of the R&D money the Pentagon will reap off another military intervention - always have to be coming up with new ways to kill and destroy. Maybe we sell a boat load of weapons to our partners in this so-called non-war.

[Arkana]

10. Good point--if we can get Muammar to stop killing the rebels,

popular sentiment will chase him out of Libya once he decides it's no longer worth it.

[vaberella]

35. I think that's the general point of the mission. n/t

[SnakeEyes]

16. National Review? ugh

Anyway... this is war... or rather perpetual conflict ala Iraq/Saddam.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. This, after saying "...Col. Gaddafi needs to step down from power and leave."

He even said that he wanted to be clear about it.

Once a despot KNOWS that the intent is to have him removed from power, what's the leverage from focused and limited action? He knows they're not going to let him remain in control.

Is our President completely unaware of how unscrupulous people work? There's plenty of evidence that he does, and Qaddafi's as simple a thug as they come.

The very idea that people are surprised that he's not readily complying is astonishing: the stated intent has at least at some point recently been to REMOVE HIM FROM POWER. What impetus does he have for negotiation or mitigation? His course is clear: crush his rebellion before it can be buttressed from abroad.

What truly disturbs me is the stunning naivete of our approach. The fact that our outrage is very selectively vented on those who aren't our allies is also something that won't escape notice from the rest of the world.

Disgusting as it sounds, this is a time for decisive and unambiguous action, and it's something we seem thoroughly incapable of at the moment. The situation is abundantly clear to Qaddafi, though.

[old mark]

22. Yes- sounds like someone did not hear Obama say that..Kind of pointless to leave Ghadaffi in place..

[Teaser]

21. You'll never convince me that Obama is not...

HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ZombieHorde]

28. In President Obama's defense, he has yet to create and release a country music album.

"History's Greatest Monsters" must have created and/or released country music in order to qualify for that title.

[vaberella]

34. Hey I love me some Johnny Cash, Conway Twitty, Kenny Rogers, and Dolly Parton. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

39. Totally depraved. You remind me of the German gentleman who

volunteered to be eaten.

[Safetykitten]

25. Uh...wait...what? Not get rid of him? Oh this should be real good.

[vaberella]

32. The point is to protect the people. That's the point and his meaning.

If the people want him out...they will get him out. Basically he's stating this is not another Iraq where the intention was to get rid of Sadam. The multinational focus is only to protect the protesters from violence.

[Abq_Sarah]

41. Because firing tomahawk missiles into Tripoli

Protects civilians from violence.

[tekisui]

26. Good. It shouldn't be to oust or target Gaddafi, but to mitigate the

killing of innocents by Gaddafi.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[sad sally]

29. Didn't the President say last week that Qaddafi had to go?

Oh, he didn't mean he had to leave right away - first we, 'er the coalition, has to bomb the country to smithereens then we'll hunt him and his family down, have a fair trial then execute him and his. Then we'll have to send in troops to maintain the peace and rebuild. Oh yeah, that's the sequence.

[vaberella]

33. If you don't understand...ask for clarity, don't make up outlandish stories that are incorrect.

His meaning is rather clear. He does believe that Gaddafi needs to go. He has not moved from that stance. However, the reasoning behind the multinational interjection into the civil dispute is to protect the rights of the people. You do realize that Gaddafi is actually bombing people while they sleep in his cities. Little children are being hurt and killed by their own leader. Obama's position as the President and as one of the alliances in the UN resolution measure---made the pact to try to protect these people. Hence the reason if you paid attention to President Obama's speech yesterday he clearly defines the role of the US and why we are doing it through the UN. The sanctions and the "no-fly zone" are engaged as a method to or tactic to force Gaddafi to back off the people and the protestors who are peacefully protesting. That's what this is about. With the protection in place then it's up to the Libyan people to continue on in their fight for dynamic change in their nation.

This is not hard to understand. Instead you're being snarky and spreading misinformation in it's place. If you don't understand, you don't understand. If you don't like the measure, you don't like the measure. But don't run on conjecture when the facts are around and easily understandable.

[sad sally]

36. Thanks for the scolding. I feel duly reprimanded.

Oh, and I did listen to every word of the President's speech and Sec. Clinton's - also read the statement from the UN. Very seldom do military interventions go exactly as planned, and the end goal is usually more than is apparent from the beginning. Yes, I do know Qaddafi is a tyrant who is killing his own people, and there are probably special US forces secretly planning to take him out. That being said, my government has been known to lie to it's people, so I have doubts in what this latest intervention really means.

peace to you and yours - may you never have to deal with the aftermath of war.

[vaberella]

37. Already have...I'm Haitian, now Haitian-American. n/t

[Critters2]

38. It's about profits for the weapons manufacturers. nt