In all seriousness, this really isn’t news:
The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and contact rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.
While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.
United States officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers — from the location of Colonel Qaddafi’s munitions depots to the clusters of government troops inside towns — might help weaken Libya’s military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.
In addition, the American spies are meeting with rebels to try to fill in gaps in understanding who their leaders are and the allegiances of the groups opposed to Colonel Qaddafi, according to United States government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the activities. American officials cautioned, though, that the Western operatives are not directing the actions of rebel forces.A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment.
The question is why is all the official confirmation coming out today? To gauge reaction domestically? Or to simply continue the FITD strategy and prepare us for the next step? “Well, it’s just a no-fly zone. And yeah, we are bombing his ground forces. And yeah, we’ve said all along Qaddafi has to go. And sure, we’ve had agents on the ground from the beginning. So yeah, arming the rebels…”
JPL
NO COMMENT
salacious crumb
does being CIA count as boots on the ground….i think Obama is going to paint this very hard as No. still what happens of one gets killed in action..the goal posts have changed…now its removal of Gaddhafi..either we do it by bombing, or the rebels do it with the military and non military aid that we provide.
Butler
Since this is what Newt (supposedly) wanted in the first place, how does he do a rhetorical double backflip away from this now?
General Stuck
Just what I said was happening in the last thread. What “next step”? You know, it really isn’t 2003 anymore. I often pine for 1969, a year I spent without using a single brain cell, except the one or two in my pecker, but it was exciting, and I sometimes miss that excitement. And that I could do it over, but smarter this time. Nocandoo.
Please listen. ONLY US GROUND TROOPS WILL MAKE IT REMOTELY LIKE IRAQ. And if that happens, then we can go completely motherfucking insane together. It isn’t going to, btw.
FlipYrWhig
The reaction here has been distinctly negative. What would the administration hope to gain by leaking it themselves? I would guess that it was the people within the gov’t who don’t like what’s going on, who worry about escalation, who would put these stories out there. No?
Elia
Isn’t it more likely that someone was trying to make Obama look bad?
EDIT: Yeah what he ^ said.
But to the idea that we’re DEFINITELY never sending troops to Libya…I’m not saying we definitely are but I just can’t be so sure of that…this whole damn thing keeps reminding me more and more of The Best and the Brightest.
cleek
@General Stuck:
you are the first person to say IRAQ on this thread.
is being like IRAQ the only way things can go bad?
yes/no
Lolis
It never hurts to be overly skeptical of HuffPo’s screamo headlines. At best, they are often sensational, at worst purposefully misleading. The quality journalism sometimes featured on the site is not visible in the headlines.
Butler
This is certainly wishful thinking, but how do we know that there are actually spies and operatives on the ground? Maybe this is an attempt at a giant mind fuck to make Quaddafi even more paranoid, to the point he gives up and gets out of dodge. As any good despot knows, the CIA doesn’t fuck around with the coups.
bleh
I wouldn’t count on there having been a Grand Strategy. It’s pretty much made up as they go along, subject to various momentary correlations of force.
I just hope we got some serious goodies out of the UK and France for this. Probably divvied up the post-Qaddafi oilfield claims or something.
And BTW, I agree with General Stuck, it isn’t going to come to any sizable US force on the ground, unless perhaps as a small part of some UN peacekeeping force or something. The rebels are too ragtag, and we’re still too singed from Iraq.
General Stuck
@cleek:
I don’t respond to demands for yes or no answers. My comment was directed toward Cole, not you.
edit – and the salient point in my remark was introduction of US ground troops into Libya, and what that would mean.
arguingwithsignposts
If this thread doesn’t at least hit 250 comments, BJ has jumped the libyan shark.
Davis X. Machina
@General Stuck:
It’s always 2003. It was the blogosphere’s Spitfire Summer, and everyone involved in it will always see everything through its prism.
pattonbt
Again, this is just me and my opinion (always late coming into these threads from the other side of the world).
These kind of outcomes were obvious in the beginning, and that more direct “on the ground involvement” would have to take place. Once we put the No Fly Zone in place, we chose sides. We were in. And we were invested in one side winning. It was no longer an option t allow that side to lose.
And now we have to see it through to the end. What the end is and how painful getting there is is still to be seen. But Given the nature of the conflict and the sides involved, their ability to wage effective war, their ability to govern and rule a broken state when it’s all over and all that jazz means we, or hopefully our allies instead, will have to get involved directly on the ground.
The situation is fluid and who knows what will pass, but this necessary involvement could be seen from the get go. That is why I was, and still am against, the US being directly involved. There was no reason why it had to be us at all. Our allies could have easily taken the lead and be doing so now. But now we own it because whether we like it or not Obama has taken the lead and given our allies room to be part of a “coalition” led by Obama. The world will look to Obama for what “the West” does in this situation and any attempt to now handball that responsibility off to an ally will not be allowed to happen.
This is no pro/con Obama talk, just the reality of the US President taking the lead and letting other more suitable parties off the hook for that action.
Two other points I want to make…
1) To those saying “we don’t want to be on the wrong side of history” in this intervention. Directly intervening or not did not mean we didn’t have to chose sides. We could have easily stated what we believed and let our allies do the hard work (which is more appropriate in this situation). Why does the US have to lead in order to be on the “right side of history”. I believe if we had stayed out of it and just given moral support, we would have been in an even better position of being “on the right side of history”. Again, my opinion.
2) To people who are “Ok with the intervention for now”. This pisses me off. You don’t get to just pick and chose when you do or do not support aggression. Sure, it’s easy for me, who doesn’t want to directly intervene to sit comfortably on the sideline and pontificate, but I have stated my reasons why and I will live by them. But for those who are like “well, I think it’s OK for now, but if it goes wrong then I’m not OK with it”. That attitude sucks when waging war. Once you choose war, you are in and you are responsible for the outcomes. There are no do-overs or “well, I didn’t mean that, even though I recognized it could lead to that when I gave my tepid support” (whatever “that” is). So if things go worse you don’t get to them come around and criticize when it doesn’t go off all nice and neat. Again, my opinion.
Again, if all goes well, I will be happy, but still strongly state why I do not think we should have been involved at all.
In war there are too many variables, many traditional ones which could have been easily foreseen in this conflict (and may or may not come to fruition but are predictable based on the facts of the conflict). So those who are in, you own it now. No going back.
I hope I am wrong.
Bob Loblaw
@FlipYrWhig:
The number of people who would be that deeply in the know on real time covert operations would seem to rather limit the possibility, no?
Jay B.
Reposted from below:
So now it’s cool that after bombing the country with the OK of the UN, the CIA props up rebels, one of whom (or a few of whom) will eventually lead the “transition to democracy” or whatever bullshit we’re going to say and then what? Who will see this as legitimate in Libya? It’s the CIA.
Then, once our CIA-trained rebel leader (who may have been living near Langley for the past 20 years) takes over, will there be a general amnesty? Will the other factions go along with the provisional government? Will the country? All of it is conjecture, but sure, say it all works out. The U.S. will have to ensure the peace and the arrangement. Our Man in Tripoli will have to simultaneously have to deal with American interests, armed Old Guards AND armed “rebels” as well as the tribal thicket which also goes along geographical lines.
Again, now, whatever happens, whoever opposes whoever takes power in Libya will be able to point out, correctly, that the CIA helped him gain power.
Does anyone not know their history? Are we deluded enough to think this will work this time, despite having a nearly unmatched record of failure? Read the Legacy of Ashes. Try and find a success story. Jesus wept.
sherparick
With notably rare exceptions, all our wars in the Levant turn out perfect and short.
With notably rare exceptions, in for nickel, in for the pot.
With notably rare exceptions, nations enjoy being bombed by us Americans.
General Stuck
Good for you. I don’t care.
Davis X. Machina
@sherparick:
Take France, e.g., from 1942-45. The French hated every minute of it.
pattonbt
Sorry for the length and typos of my previous post.
And as always restated, my opinions expressed in this post are only those regarding Libya and the US’s direct military involvement.
Hopefully, my opinions are not see as an attempt to inflame those who hold different opinions, just further clarification of what I believe.
Bob Loblaw
@General Stuck:
Right up there with the classics “I know you are but what am I?” and “I’m rubber and you’re glue, so what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
Jay B.
@Davis X. Machina:
Actually, they didn’t exactly love it. In fact, there were a lot of Normans who were quite pissed off, even if they were supportive of the allied goals.
jo6pac
Your welcome
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
well, perhaps its news designed and released for the express purpose of rattling it around the cage of k’daphe. you know, let him think, or know,that we are further along than he might otherwise believe, shorten the window he imagines himself to poop or get off the pot.
Davis X. Machina
@Jay B.: More or less what I said.
Things are complicated.
General Stuck
@Bob Loblaw:
more like
EAT SHIT Loblaw
General Stuck
@pattonbt:
Fair enough, I got my pet peeves too, like cheering the revolts until the revolters were about to be slaughtered. But I don’t mention it for the cause of civility that I am known for. Except for loblaw, of course.
pattonbt
@General Stuck: That is fine. You opinion is well documented. I of course disagree with it and personally find it shallow, callous, based on fantasy understanding of the evolution of armed conflict and part of the reason why the US will continue to fail when it does intervene, but to each their own I guess.
Ronc99
Obama now OWNS three wars — like Jon Stewart said: Qeue the HOPE signal, as this is INSANE!
General Stuck
@pattonbt:
So wanna bet genius? One wooden nickel says Obama will not introduce us ground forces for creating a ground war on behalf of either side, which I hope was what your blathering about “evolution of armed conflict” was about. Otherwise, you are just another chicken little, and fit in with the flock of chicken littles on this blog.
Jay B.
Now that it’s cool and legal for the CIA to overthrow governments again, who’s next?
mcd410x
Al Jazeera tweeting:
*Intl coalition has so far shot 7 Tomahawk missiles in #Libya. US has shot 216. Keep up with #AlJazeera: http://aje.me/hwGxvv #gaddafi
*US military: Coalition jet fighters have so far flown 784 sorties over #Libya. The US: 1206.
Go, coalition, go!
Ronc99
@General Struck
Would rather be deemed a chicken little than the hardcore fucking bully that YOU are, sir!
Butler
Maybe my math sucks, but I count only two that he OWNS. Lybia, yes. Afghanistan, sure. How does he OWN Iraq, exactly?
srv
It’s being leaked because the rebels are getting their asses kicked even with us fighting their civil war for them.
*Also, too, the CIA is trying to make itself relevant. Next they’ll have a “CIAinTripoli” twitter site.
Actually, that gives me an idea…
General Stuck
@Ronc99:
You’ve read the intelligence then. It’s all lies. I’ve retired from that life of incivility and ill repute. Would you like some Stuck Tall House Cookies?
FlipYrWhig
@Bob Loblaw: You tell me. If it was approved weeks ago, and “official” people inside didn’t like that development, maybe they go to the press and make life a bit difficult. Like happened in the Bush years with people like Armitage and Wilkerson who became internal dissenters (IIRC).
pattonbt
@General Stuck: I was going to apologize for my retort, but I guess it’s not worth it.
No, I will not “game theory” this conflict. I have no way of knowing how this will turn out. And most likely whatever I guess now will not resemble the outcome.
That’s why I am not for it, no one knows, but history is a good enough guide for me to say “not the US, at least in any direct intervention. Cheerlead? OK. Act? No”.
I guess caution in war just isn’t exciting enough for those who just believe everything will go hunky dorey.
Again, why should those who have history on their side (facts and all) regarding how these interventions turn out be the ones to have to prove why this time won’t be different. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Slightly edited for my usual poor typing.
J.W. Hamner
What do people think we have the CIA for, if not things like this?
Obviously the CIA has a pretty abysmal track record on “things like this”, and I understand why it’s a worry, but the situation in Libya is pretty much a prototypical example of why a government has a spy agency.
Butler
@mcd410x: Are we just gonna ignore the rest of this:
So the coalition has flown half the “strike missions” overall, and 60% of those undertaken in the last day. Not bad. Actually a lot more balanced than I expected. And credit to AJ for the reporting.
As for missles… meh. They are relatively cheap compared to sorties, they blow things up good, they don’t put servicemen at risk, and we have more than anyone else. Fire at will.
Davis X. Machina
Wondered what BJ’s position would be re 1798? A world superpower running guns, arming rebels, even landing small numbers of troops, in support of a rising that was doomed to be crushed anyways.
Anybody here know ‘The Rising of the Moon’? Or The Sean Bhean Bhocht“?
Butler
Stupid blockquote tag.
Omnes Omnibus
@pattonbt: To say that I am with this action to point “x” but no further is not the same as saying that I support this as long as it goes well.
joe from Lowell
Perhaps to bury Libyan government figures with evidence that they’re in a precarious position, to encourage defections and activity against Gaddaffi?
Perhaps to sow paranoia among officials so they’ll suspect each other of being moles, and off each other?
I hope at least one true-blue Gadaffi loyalist is being set up to look like a traitor to his fellow butchers.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck:
Every time John discovers something new he didn’t know about before, he pretends it’s new so he can convince himself the mission is creeping.
General Stuck
@pattonbt:
Dude, you spent a long comment telling us EXACTLY how it was going to come out from you vast knowledge of “evolution of warfare” and managed a rap on the head of those of us who are very reluctantly approving of the efforts to stop a slaughter and even the playing field between the sides concerning weaponry to fight THEIR civil war.
And again, the only valid argument for “gaming” this out, which is exactly what you were doing, is introduction of US ground combat troops where most of we approvers draw the line. And it is a fair and relevant line to draw, that severely limits out involvement in this mess. At least militarily. WE are involved with every country on the planet, or thereabouts in other ways, and we will be in Libya as we have been.
Laertes
The CIA is everywhere, all the time. If the presence of CIA officers constitutes “boots on the ground” then we’ve no doubt got “boots on the ground” in North Korea, Gaza, Uzbekistan, and, I dunno, Monaco?
Who’s surprised by this?
Gardenvarietygator
I do not consider CIA to be equal to “boots on the ground”.
I really expect that the USA has agents in just about every country in the world including allies because its their JOB to know what’s going on and there are people present in all countries that are not our friends. As a matter of fact, I think it’s always been a problem to have enough in the really exotic to our culture places which is often exactly where we need them. Its been glaringly obvious since the whole mid east erupted in various rebellions that we didn’t know enough about ANY of the new leaders and that has to be fixed ASAP. I’d be amazed and angry if any US president didn’t send lots of agents sniffing around because we need to know a lot more. So agents alone don’t mean we are trying to, ahem, influence events, yet.
We do have a history of thinking we could pick a new leader and having it go wrong, but that is a deeper level.
We HAVE to know more. I hope we have agents asking the rebels questions…and other agents trying to blend in and overhear what the rebels talk about privately. Who lies in other words. So much of our stupid side of history involves us not knowing and not checking. I want us to pause and stop to gather lots and lots of info and compare it and think about it carefully.
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
Joe, wouldn’t it be a nice gesture to apologize for the implicit bigotry remark on Cole. He is an idiot on these kind of matters, but not a bigot or racist. This i am sure of. Just some advice.
cat48
Isikoff was just on Rachel & has talked to “some members” of the Gang of Eight who know nothing about arming the Rebels. He said that they should have been briefed and he is VERY excited b/c he believes the Reuter’s reporter who thinks Obama did arm them and Isikoff is certain that Obama has a scandal now; just like Reagan’s arms deal. He’s very happy!
Or not. I’ll wait for the final edition on this. Over the years, I’ve wasted far too much energy being outraged over things that did not happen. I believe, however, the CIA & probably Special Ops are involved as that’s what we do all over the Middle East/Africa. Richard Engel is on at 11pm tonight with a special live show. He was bitching last nite that the Rebels were poorly armed so I don’t think anythings arrived for them yet.
The article said that British Spec Ops are everywhere in Libya so they haven’t left, according to a retired Spec Ops guy.
Bob Loblaw
@FlipYrWhig:
Um, no. You tell me. You want to proffer conspiracy theories, you put in the work of identifying the players.
The simplest answer is nearly always the likeliest. The Oval Office authorized the strategic leak. Why specifically, I don’t know and I don’t really care. They have their reasons. I’m not the one who gets offended that the administration would deign to use a complicit and willing press as a tool in their information campaign, and is trying to come up with some other explanation instead.
FlipYrWhig
@Laertes:
Doing the bidding of Big Baccarat, presumably.
joe from Lowell
@sherparick:
Did you see the Thank You rallies in Benghazi the day the UN mission started? With the British and American flags?
It’s precisely because of the “notably rare exception” nature of this situation that I’m on board in the first place. Since when do we side with protesters against a cooperative oil dictator? Since when do the locals cheer us coming in, and ask us for more? Since when does the Arab League go to the UN asking for western nations to take military action against an Arab government?
This isn’t Vietnam. This isn’t Iraq. This is Tunisia and Egypt, with a particularly murderous dictator opting to reenact the last scene of Scarface instead of taking the sweet retirement.
FlipYrWhig
@Bob Loblaw: Uh, there’s two obvious choices. There’s supporters in the administration leaking deliberately, and there’s dissenters in the administration leaking deliberately. I haven’t the foggiest of bottoms which it is. I just wanted to hear a reason why it would be supporters rather than dissenters.
AhabTRuler
@pattonbt: Newsletter, subscribe &c.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck: Perhaps if he doesn’t keep picking fights, I’ll decide to be the bigger man.
Have you seen him write a single Libya post that wasn’t written around the subject line “Fuck you, I was right?”
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
well, ok. not my beeswax
Though I think this clearly falls into the idiot cat, and not the bigot cat.
Bob Loblaw
@FlipYrWhig:
And yet there you were “guessing” at 8:48pm that somebody, somewhere was trying to make the administration look bad. Because that’s the way your worldview is wired.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
It’s Time for Gadaffi to Go: Barack Obama
February 27.
Gravenstone
I’m gonna go with a public stick to complement the private carrots we have to be dangling to get Qaddafi to leave voluntarily. You’d think the NFZ would be stick enough, but maybe floating something more directly pointed at his head is required.
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck:
Oh, now that he clarified what “region” he meant, the whole thing falls into the idiot cat, not the bigot cat.
But an apology is something one does in civilized company.
I read him wrong. He can still go pound sand.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m with Joe on this one. Fuck apologies. What is this, kindergarten?
John Cole
I’m seriously starting to think you are either mentally ill, illiterate, simply mashing together everyone you perceive as disagreeing with you into one person, or some combination. I started this post with the sentence “In all seriousness, this really isn’t news” because, you know, it isn’t news. Lo and behold, here is me eight days ago:
What is “new” is not that we have assets on the ground, but that we have confirmation from officials that this is going on. And the question is why would they confirm such a thing?
As usual, you are completely and willfully distorting what I have said so you can fight the demons in your head.
John Cole
You read me wrong and then implied I was racist, and then insisted for the next eight hours that it was my fault because I was unclear. And now you continue to create strawmen at a keyboard pace that a meth-addicted secretary would envy. I don’t want your wimpy, qualified “apology.” Blow it out your ass.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: thanks, and in the very same article, it says this is a shift…
alright seriously man, do you stand for anything except the thought that you are winning arguments with anonymous commenters on this blog…
so first it was, just a clean cut bombing, thats how this mission started, and now its gaddhafi removal….
and ok lets say in your head, this isnt a major reversal, what do you now say…if Gaddhafi doesnt go then what, do we have the rebels assassinate him…or do we have the CIA do it …
clearly none of this seems as a major shift in goal posts..well i guess one can expect much from someone who claims Israel is a `competitor` of the United States
General Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
That question has been bouncing around my bonnet lately, specially when I forget and read one of your droppings.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Official confirmation of something that has long been happening is an escalation?
And then you clarified the statement that several of us understood the same way, I acknowledged what you meant.
Hurry, ladies! Believe it or not, he’s still available!
salacious crumb
@John Cole: trying to argue with Joe is like trying to make a dog`s tail straight..aint gonna happen…..the Israelis and Palestinians will make peace before joe realizes he has some issues to deal with…
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
It was a shift. Did you see the date on that article? Prior to February 26, our policy wasn’t regime change. After February 26, it was. There was a shift over a month ago.
No. Look at the date. Look at the date on that article. Look at the date on your monitor. Look at the date of the UN resolution (March 17).
Removing Gadaffi became our policy three weeks before the UN mission even began.
Oh, for Christ’s sakes! The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is a competitor of the United States. Not Israel. For Christ sakes, are you kidding me with this shit?
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Stuck: Somehow I’m not surprised to find out you wear a bonnet.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
You know what? Maybe you should master such intricacies as how to read a calendar. Or how to read:
You: the US govt clearly seems to think they (MB) are still a threat, especially vis a vis Israel…so they (MB) are not our friend…
Me: No, they’re not our friend. Nor are they our enemy. I’d put them into a category comparable to “opposition” or “competitor.”
And you can’t figure out that I was using “they” to mean the same thing you were, when I used exactly the same term you did?
Whatever, man. Yeah, I have issues. Me.
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell:
We’re here for you when you come out of yer shame spiral, Joe.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: ok i read the Israel part wrong. my bad.
what exactly is your point with all these dates..so on one hand we said, ok we are gonna remove Gaddhafi (or we want him removed) and then we later say oh no the point of this bombing campaign is to prevent a slaughter..why couldnt obama just say hey the point of this bombing campaign is to remove Gaddhafi….
cleek
@General Stuck:
Cole didn’t say IRAQ, either.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: in your world, god knows where you get your sources of information, but the United States govt still considers MB to be threatening enough for it to not want them in power..in your world, sure MB isnt a threat, and I dont believe it is, but you clearly dont read much if you havent figured out that the whole reason we propped Hosni was to stop the MB from ever taking over…hell we even allowed Hosni to delegitimize the election results when it seemd MB was winning….
J.W. Hamner
Let me check the manual, but I think we’re officially at Blog DEFCON 3… which as regulations state: requires somebody to threaten to come to another poster’s house and beat them up.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
Because the bombing campaign/No Fly Zone is a UN operation, a military operation, that we joined, which does not aim at the removal of Gadaffi.
While the American policy, which the UN has nothing to do with, and which does not include military action, is to remove Gadaffi.
We’re doing two things in Libya. One of them, which we’re doing along with the UN, is a military operation. It is not aimed at Gadaffi’s removal. (If it was, the rebels attacking Sirte would have gotten air support and not been pushed back). The other one, which is not military and does not involve the UN, is aimed at Gadaffi’s removal.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
Oh, certainly. We did that for years. Decades.
But then, starting a couple months ago, we stopped. We went in another direction. We stopped propping up Hosni, we let a popular movement topple him, and let the interim government stage elections that the MB just might win.
Something changed, because we aren’t doing what we were doing before.
Ella in New Mexico
@John Cole:
Oh the deep-felt Drama. Even so, I love to see the evolution of newbies here as they “come up to speed” on the Who’s Who at Balloon Juice.
Anyways……
Why is ANYONE surprised the CIA is over there? Why is it a problem? Sounds like exactly the mind fuck that will get Muammar Gaddafi to run screaming from his plastic palace, begging Berlusconi for asylum in Italy. IMHO.
“CIA operatives in Libya” actually seems like a perfect strategy for this kind of operation: a few super-well-trained, well-protected intelligence agents advise the rebels vs. a 20 year-old trying to get a GI bill to finish college who gets blowed up by a roadside bomb or a sniper. What more could we ask for?
Chill all. I think BHO is pulling a major Roadrunner on the Coyote’s here. If this was Iraq, things would be different. But this is Libya. It’s the fucking clown we’ve all known for 30 years: Muammar Gaddafi.
joe from Lowell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
“We?” Just how many of you are in there?
Can I talk to Sybil now?
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell: Don’t make fun of our circle of trust, Joe. It’s unbecoming.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: man u explained the 2 things we are doing in Libya, and yet to do not seem to have a problem (or do not see) the contradictions with the policy. so what is it that we are really doing…is Obama misleading the American people…or is he just using the UN to gain legitimacy for his assassination plan..which is it..i mean do u the problem with this plan…we are going to alone on one hand, doing whatever the fuck we think is ok now, and yet we are pretending that this is a UN mission…
joe from Lowell
Maybe you and the rest of the circle should find better pr0n.
soonergrunt
@J.W. Hamner:
If you quote another blog regulation again, I’m gonna…
Wait, where do you live and what’s the weather like, cause it sucks here in Oklahoma. Are there any good museums, or maybe a Moroccan restaurant?
General Stuck
@cleek:
You going to just be a mendacious little bottle fly buzzing around with irrelevant one liners, or are you going to offer something like a cogent and informed commentary on the Libya situation, and something more than it just sucks. Don’t bother me otherwise. You pick a comparison of what are your fears of this becoming then, with no ground troops introduced/
Or some other detailed concern of it becoming .
Mark S.
@joe from Lowell:
You don’t make Obama look very good with that argument.
joe from Lowell
@Mark S.: Because he can do two things at the same time?
Anyway, it’s not my “argument.” It’s the policy he laid out two nights ago, as well as several times before that.
Look, US AID and the US Army are both in Afghanistan. One of them is fighting a war against the Taliban. One of them is not. Are “we,” the United States, fighting a war against the Taliban? Yep. Does that mean US AID is fighting a war against the Taliban? No, it doesn’t.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
Libya is neither mission creep or Iraq II.
It is a whole new horrible thing.
The Obama doctrine is humanitarian imperialism.
It is not the anti-Bush Doctrine, like I thought.
The OD (nice ack, eh?) is an expansion of the UN “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.
I feel sick.
ChrisNYC
The premise of this post is wrong. It was reported weeks ago in several sources that there were Brit special forces in Libya. Here’s one example from March 6.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41934341/ns/world_news-africa/
Since the terrible horrible Libya decision is an obsession on this blog, I’m surprised that no one seems to be following the actual story.
As far as the news that there are CIA agents there — is that really news? Are CIA agents “mission creep”? If they are, we’ve got mission creep in all sorts of countries. Just trying to keep up.
Mark S.
@joe from Lowell:
You’re comparing USAID to the motherfucking CIA?
pattonbt
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Well that was fast.
joe from Lowell
@Mark S.: No.
They really need to start including analogies on the SAT again.
You see, in an analogy – “A is to B as C is to D,” you aren’t actually comparing A to B, C, or D.
You’re comparing the relationship between A and B to the relationship between C and D.
101 is to 99 as 4 is to 2. OMG, did I just compare 101 to 4?
No. No, I did not.
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell: Did you just compare 99 to 2? Idiot.
pattonbt
@Omnes Omnibus:
“To say that I am with this action to point “x” but no further is not the same as saying that I support this as long as it goes well.”
In principle, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. I just think, in this situation, it is naive (and again, not trying to bait people here, be argumentative or get Stuck foaming at the mouth) to not see mission creep (of some sort) is almost a given. I guess I find it difficult to believe that so many people who have seen the outcomes of our actions in the past can grant so much faith that we will not repeat the same mistakes we seem to always make, or that more serious intervention will not be required, or not foreseeing a potential long term commitment to enforcing a partitioned state in the case both sides draw lines in the sand.
And fair to Stuck’s point, I did “game theory” in my original post so it’s not fair for me to say I won’t do that. Mae Culpa.
But I do think it is more than fair to say that history is not on the side of those who think this engagement will be as limited as they want to believe and the onus of proof of “this time is different” is more on them than those of us saying “I wouldn’t be so quick to say that”.
I fully appreciate the desire to step in when a humanitarian crisis seems to be looming, and I really, really do not want to begrudge those here who hold such positions (because on 95% of the rest of the troubles in the world I agree with them) but it’s hard to see why people are willing to believe “this time will be different”.
Mark S.
@joe from Lowell:
That isn’t what you argued. You said in one instance we sent the military and USAID, but here we’re sending the military and the CIA. Or, here we used a carrot and a stick, but in this case we’re using a stick and another stick.
Non-Existent Patricia
@pattonbt: In all honesty, this is one of the most well reasoned responses I’ve seen, but if you agree with humanitarian/intervention goals how would you go about achieving them? And if Libya is not the proper context/situation, what is? Because if we view every intervention through the prism of every intervention that has gone wrong, them we shouldn’t intervene no matter the goal.
General Stuck
@pattonbt:
The president said “absolutely” there would be no US ground troops deployed in Libya. If he breaks that promise, he is finished for his reelection, and I would support a viable primary challenger.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
I am talking about combat troops,
joe from Lowell
@Mark S.:
It is indeed what I argued. I wrote about us doing two different things in Libya, and explained the relationship between them – one of them is aimed at a particular end, while the other is not aimed at that end.
I then gave an example of where we were doing two different things in Afghanistan, one of them aimed at a particular end, while the other is not aimed at that end.
Hope this clears things up for you. I didn’t mean to be opaque.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@pattonbt: its why he wont draw down A-stan either.
i have been betrayed.
It all makes sense naow.
:(
joe from Lowell
@General Stuck: Screw promises. They can only get you so far.
What gives me confidence that there will be no ground forces, no Americans taking and holding ground, no occupation, no “boots on the ground” as we’ve all come to understand that term in Iraq and Afghanistan and every other war that has included American ground forces, is this:
The UN Resolution forbids occupation forces. The partners in the coalition, including the Arab League countries and a good chunk of NATO, would not tolerate American forces being put into another country. The coalition would split, and one only needs to look at the Kosovo War to see how serious “liberal hawks” are about keeping their coalitions together.
General Stuck
@joe from Lowell:
Then it is an easy promise to keep.
Omnes Omnibus
@pattonbt: This is one of those situations where I can say I see your point and I share your concerns. People have beaten this to death without getting anywhere, so I will shorthand a few reasons that I believe make it likely this this will be different. I know each is subject to analysis, counter-argument, and simple rejection, but here goes. The fact that the Arab League, etc., went to the UN to call for this. The limited nature of the UN resolution. The actual multinational coalition that I think will mitigate against mission creep. The fact that the US already appears to be taking a backseat. Finally, the fact that I trust the judgment of our current President far more than I trusted the previous one. I am not saying that I trust him absolutely, but I do think the man making the decisions does matter. As I said, many can and will disagree with the reasons I offered. I also will note that this was a quick list that does not delve into details and nuance.
pattonbt
@Non-Existent Patricia: I have stated my general criteria for US intervention many, many threads ago. Simply summarized (I am sure there are many nuances and or things I haven’t thought of before which could apply):
1) Imminent direct physical threat to our homeland or closest allies homeland,
2) World War type arenas (I think these may be dinosaurs now with so many nukes around but you never know), and
3) Humanitarian (facts and circumstances to be individually evaluated) intervention very close to our borders.
My beef here is not that intervening in Libya isn’t right. It just isn’t right for the US to be anything other than a cheerleader. Europe and Arab league can handle this without us.
pattonbt
@General Stuck: I responded to your comment in Dougj’s post above about the “boots on the ground bit, but the funny thing is, if ground troops are deployed, I would still vote for Obama. Even though I thought Obama would be better in this arena than any other presidential candidate (and I still believe that), I knew he would never be what I wanted him to be either. I do not believe any other Democratic President (electable candidates only) would handle this better than Obama.
Maybe I’m so far gone, or have such a low opinion of how we utilize our military, that I just do not expect more from our Presidents in this regard. The US, for me, is too casual with force, too enamoured with our military’s capabilities and toys (and a bit blinded about the realities of the objectives we can actually achieve) and our population to bomb-hungry to make it otherwise.
Obama was screwed six ways from Sunday on Libya. That doesn’t mean I still won’t be disappointed, but I really do not expect much on these fronts from any American politicians of any stripe.
pattonbt
@Omnes Omnibus: And, honestly, I do appreciate all those reasons and why I try (yet sometimes fail) to make sure my posts are either “just my opinion” or an honest attempt at back in forth. I know many people support this with trepidation and it doesn’t help to curb stomp those of differing opinions (unless it’s Joe Beese).
As I’ve said, if I was grading “worthiness” of interventions this one gives me less willies than many others. I like our President (and trust him to be more honourable in prosecuting this than most any other politician), the arena is more manageable, there are more willing participants and all the other reasons you list. The break for me is at “distance from home” and “needing to break the US’s bad habits on sticking its nose in everything when it isn’t necessary”.
And I do hope for the best and hope I am proven wrong.
Non-Existent Patricia
@pattonbt: So, you’re essentially anti-intervention, which I tend to agree with. But, given the criteria you’ve stated, why would Europe intervene? And, how do we as a country define “closest” and “allies”?
Omnes Omnibus
@pattonbt: As far as curb stomping goes, the comments on this blog would get pretty dull if it was just you and I going through more or less the same analysis and coming down (marginally?) on different sides. Exception for Joe Beese noted.
pattonbt
@Non-Existent Patricia: From there, for me, it would probably become case by case. And I imagine, like many here, in some cases I would say “yes” while others would say “no” and vice versa. So I probably couldn’t give much more detail than what I have already (without aimlessly rambling on for a few pages which I am sure many others are already tired enough of my lack of succinctness).
Why Europe? Truthfully, it’s their call, not mine. But in my mind, they are closer (Mediterranean) and have daily ties with Libya and it’s people. That makes them a more “invested” party than the US. But, I could see people in the UK (as Germany has already done) making the same argument I am (“Why the UK?”). But that is for them to decide, I am not a citizen of a European country so how and when they decide to militarily act is not for me to comment on (unless it hits my outline rules above).
Non-Existent Patricia
@pattonbt: I ask because I don’t really have a clear cut “policy” in my own mind and so it’s nice hear (read) another. It helps the thought process. Of course, its Europe’s call on whether they intervene militarily (although “Europe” hasn’t as a whole, as I understand it). I was more begging the question, if not Libya, then where? But maybe its like the definition of pornography, and I’ll know it when I see it.
BattleCat
Meh, honestly, think we should’ve just stayed out of it. Whether a 1,000 people live or die in Libya doesn’t really affect the US as much as the money it costs for an intervention.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@BattleCat: no kiddin’.
This is only the beginning.
Humanitarian Imperialism aka the Obama Doctrine is actually the SuperWalmart version of Just War Theory.
There will be a kajillion places that present an opportunity for “responsibility to protect” and Obama need only handpick the ones where the probability of a positive outcome is high.
And so we will keep doing it. Maybe forever, because possibly the GOP is never going to win another general.
The most horrible thing is this is why we are sticking in A-stan.
I couldnt understand why we are still in A-stan, spending a billion a day to commit atrocities and make more Taliban. Now I know.
We many never leave, unless we are forced to.
Because of the “humanitarian” mission.
And it will never stop. I still think Odyssey Dawn is going to be a “success”.
And that will make the next one automatic.
Now Operation Frequent Wind II becomes the ONLY exit strategy. The bad thing I’m sensing might be what it is going to take to dislodge us.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
Two quotes from Heretics of Dune that I think are appropriate.
__
:(
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@pattonbt: case by case.
Here are your next two…Syria and Iran.
Do you feel it yet?
Next “Just War”….. Tehran.
I think I am now obligated to commit seppuku from shame.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
You see, Juicers…..everything I didn’t understand about Obama’s policies….al-Awlaki, Baghram, Camp No, Afghanistan, DDOSing Wikileaks, Manning’s treatment, character assassination on Assange…it all snicks into place.
Obama is an evangelical after all.
A humanitarian imperialist, and the only difference between him and Big White Christian Bwana is his skin color.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
@Ella in New Mexico:
“CIA operatives in Libya” actually seems like a perfect strategy for this kind of operation: a few super-well-trained, well-protected intelligence agents advise the rebels vs. a 20 year-old trying to get a GI bill to finish college who gets blowed up by a roadside bomb or a sniper. What more could we ask for?
Because life is not an episode of “Chuck”.
The reports are that the CIA operatives are there scouting military strikes. In all probability, they’re just paramilitary types out of uniform setting up for air strikes – spotters with plausible deniability. They are troops on the ground – just paid under the table.
TaosJohn
Here’s a Libyan oil export map. Interesting to try to plug geopolitics into imported LIbyan oil stats, though not necessarily enlightening. Libyan oil is only 6% of our import total, for example. Chinese total is 10%.
Eureka Springs
Yeah boy, Bunch of humanitarians, the CIA.
Calouste
@Ella in New Mexico:
I don’t know which CIA with well-trained agents you have heard about, but the CIA I have heard about can’t even reply to an emergency call without racing the wrong way down a one-way street and running over a cyclist.