Let's hope Libya doesn't become an ideological litmus test, either on the left or between D and R

[Armstead]

Along with the No Fly Zone, the domestic flame wars have begun, both in the media and in places like DU.

In terms of partisan battles, thetre are different aspects.

On the right, the GOP/Fux spew-machine will undoubtedly find reasons to criticize Obama's actions. And the reasons will probably be contradictory and hypocritical. Either he will be "too weak" for not initiating a new full-scale war or, if we do get further involved he will be "busting the budget" by engaging in a new military conflict.

Fuk 'em. let them spew.

On the Democratic/Left Hand side of the spectrum, though we also are likely to see circular firing squads. Supporters of President Obama will defend him for striking just the right "balance," and that he's really playing a form of 3D chess that we mere mortals don't understand..... Meanwhile, there will also be criticisms from the less Obama-friendly portions of our side that he is being a Bush-like warmonger who is bringing a repeat of the Iraq War.

IMO, though, the ideological straightjackets should not be applied to this situation. It would be helpful if the nation-- especially the GOP Conservatives -- would follow the old adage that "politics stops at the water's edge" and not use this to score cheap political points.

Not much we can do to avoid that. But hopefully, we can at least count to ten here and elsewhere in terms of our responses to this.

What is happening throughout the Middle East is a complicated mess. The current ferment in many countries could go in any direction, and the implications are unknown....For the US there are a lot of difficult moral and practical minefields to sort through. Can we stand by and watch Kaddafi or other dictators slaughter their people? How do we prevent that without getting bogged down in widening war? What is in the national interests of the US?

Speaking personally, I frankly don't what to make of it. My feelings are very mixed and they change frequently. Overall, for example, I agree with the cautious but alert approach that President Obama has taken so far....I don't believe we can just sit back and allow slaughters to take place....But I am also wary of getting involved in still more wars, especially if they are simply used to advance neo-con and/or corporate interests.....I think we need to be firm, but I don't know whether it is smart or stupid to draw any lines in the sand (so to speak)....

In short I am confused as hell about it, and I realize that my gut level instinctual reactions at any given time might be stupid....,I also don't envy the Hobson's Choices that President Obama faces, and I want to trust his judgment....But I also don't want to give out any blank checks on this...


I just hope that all of us think about all of this stuff carefully, and separate our own responses and opinions from the usual cockfights about domestic politics....This is a matter of individual conscience and beliefs.

[Uzybone]

1. who posted this for Armstead?

Reasonable and measured. Someone must have his/her login.

[Armstead]

2. Naw, just a momentary attack of reasonableness.....

I'm sure it will pass

[MisterP]

3. why on earth should politics stop at the water's edge?

[Armstead]

7. Amend that to "politics as usual" should stop at the water's edge

It's an old cliche, but the point is that when it comes to matters of national security, and when we commit to something, it should not be politics as usual, in terms of seeking advantage or scoring points.

I agree with you that individual beliefs in terms of conscience and core values shouldn't be suspended. And that's not what I meant. Honest individualized dissent is necessary -- but iut should be outside of the usual frames we use for domestic or other kinds of global issues.

Perhaps a clearer way of saying it is that partisanship and domestic ideology should stop at the water's edge, and that it gets dowen to more fundamental stuff when war (or the possibility of war) is involved.

[hlthe2b]

4. I would correct a bit in that I don't believe support or not for Obama

is directly or completely correlated with support for the policy--even among Dems/Progressives.

[Armstead]

8. Different way of saying it but same concept

I'm not saying it has to be, or even IS so far....but it is likely to be a factor, given history and human nature.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. "What is happening throughout the Middle East is a complicated mess..."

Good luck. DU don't do 'complicated'.

[Armstead]

9. But we do "messes" quite well

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. The requirement...

...that everything be seen through the prism of Iraq will take as long to dissipate as the former requirement that everything be seen through the prism of Vietnam -- which, come to think of it, had a lot to do with Iraq.

In international affairs, I roll with Anna Karenina: Every happy country is the same. Each unhappy country is unhappy in its own way.

[Armstead]

11. Is there such a thing as a happy country?

If so, let me know and I'll fill out emigration papers tomorrow. :)

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. I was going to say...

...New Zealand, but then there was that unpleasantness in Christchuch....

Belgium's gone 250+ days without a government, but stuff still seems to work -- and the beer is to die for.

Of course, you've got to decide whether you're going to emigrate Walloon, or emigrate Vlaams.

[Uzybone]

6. at this time, with what I know, I dont support this

We shouldn't be engaging in military action in Libya. I know it'll be limited and we did it the "right way", but we shouldn't be doing it.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. I recc'd your post even though I never rec posts because I think The Greatest page is dumb

It was very reasonable and well thought out. There are good moral arguments to be made both for and against intervening in Libya.

[dionysus]

14. nice post. +1