As the battle to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi winds down, one thought (among many) has occurred to me: the U.S. policy and action in Libya has been a success.
This is not to say that the conflict is over, or that Libya is going to have a smooth transition to a democratically run country, or that Libya will even turn into a peaceful prosperous country. It's completely possible that once the dust settles the Libyan rebels will begin to fight amongst themselves (an outcome we all hope to avoid). It is also possible that they will seize power and rule in a decidedly Gadhafi manner.
Despite this I maintain that the course of action taken by the U.S. and NATO in Libya has been a success in that it has allowed Libyans to decide the future of Libya. Had NATO not intervened before Gadhafi massacred Benghazi, thousands and thousands of Libyans would have been killed and the revolution would have been violently suppressed. Thanks to the NATO air campaign, this crisis was averted and the rebels were able to continue their movement.
While many have criticized President Obama's policy, originally for being too slow to react, and then for being too interventionist (make up your minds, please people), it appears now that the U.S. and NATO provided just enough support. By providing air support we protected Libyan civilians while reducing Gadhafi's military to rubble. This fell right in line with the request for support from the Libyan rebels, the Arab League, and the African Union. By NOT sending in ground troops, we have stayed just far enough out of the conflict that we are not seen as an occupying power or controlling hegemon (unless you listen to Hugo Chavez). Now that the battle is waning and Libya nears the point of beginning to rebuild itself as a country, we have been involved enough to where we can pledge support for the Libyan Transitional National Council (the rebel leadership/government) and give assistance as needed, but we don't necessarily have to take part in costly, controversial and sometimes unwanted nation-building.
Note the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, and Libya. We've been in Iraq for eight years, Afghanistan for 10. We've been in Libya for a few months. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have cost the US over $1 trillion dollars together, with no real end in sight. The Libyan operation has cost a bit under $1 billion, and while it isn't over, and more costs are sure to come, the lack of US forces on the ground puts somewhat of a limit on that price tag.
I think that the biggest difference is in the post-war circumstances. Post-war Iraq has seen instability, ongoing violence, and increased anti-american sentiment shown especially through attacks on American troops. Post-war Afghanistan, well, we're pretty much still fighting there, but it seems like even the Afghan government is getting sick of the US, despite the fact that they would likely crumble and lose power without us. Meanwhile, Libyan's are thanking the US and NATO for their support, as evidenced by this poster in Benghazi Square, Tripoli, where thousands celebrated the end of the Gadhafi regime, including a poster of Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with the words across the top "FANTASTIC FOUR" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/libyans-thank-obama-poster_n_933396.html?1314051885&ref=fb&src=sp)
Also, as Libya goes forward and tries to transition, it will do so on its terms. Sure we may give advice and support, but it will be a Libyan government built by Libyan people, not a government built by Americans, protected by American military, with Libyan people in the positions of power.
So whether Libya turns into the thriving democratic country it has the potential to be, or another poor, unstable African country, the US and NATO's actions in this conflict have given Libyans the freedom to make that decision on their own, through (mostly) their power. We have not forced democracy on them, we have merely protected them as they fought to free themselves from the grasp of a violent dictator, and for that I say our policy was a success.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
"Politics...it's about governing"
Henry Clay once said: “Politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it’s about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern.” For his role in helping reach an agreement on the Nullification Crisis and slavery, Clay was dubbed "The Great Compromiser." Now, on the brink of a government shutdown, it looks like we could use another "Great Compromiser." As I look at our government right now, I see one side that absolutely fails to compromise and another side that is really bad at compromising.
As we approach this shutdown, Tea Party members of Congress are refusing to budge on the budget. They absolutely refuse to compromise at all. (I will note that a number of Republicans seem to want compromise, but are being pressured by the new Tea Party members to refuse any compromise)
On the other side, the Democrats are really bad at compromising. Up to this point the Democrats, led by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were giving all the way. It seemed as if compromise to them meant give in so that a deal can be made. In all the "compromises" so far, it seems as if the Democrats gave in and the Republicans held strong.
Now, as a shutdown looms, Democrats have changed their game, deciding not to give in anymore. The problem is that since they've given and given all this time, they have little to work with. Compromise is about having something to offer that the other side wants, and them having something you would like in return.
Webster's dictionary defines compromise as: "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute." The problem for the Democrats right now is that they don't really have bargaining chips, and the Republicans (guided by the Tea Party) refuse to give anything up.
I think if Henry Clay's quote could be revised today it would be something like this: "Politics SHOULD NOT be about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it SHOULD BE about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern." The problem is that politics right now is entirely about ideological purity, not about governing. Rather than compromising in order to actually govern the country, our politicians on both sides are fighting for their ideological purity.
What has happened? Why are we unwilling to compromise?
I think part of it has to do with the fact that we have become so focused on a single issue. Rather than saying "We have a budget problem and we do need to address it, HOWEVER, we also have a country to govern," the Tea Party is saying "We have a moral crisis that has led to overspending, and if we don't address this now, our country will collapse."
I agree that we need to cut back on spending, but we need to be responsible about it. The more I look at proposed budget cuts (including Paul Ryan's proposed FY2012 budget) I see cuts across the board, with little thought as to what is actually being cut. This leads to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. It's fairly clear that those who will be hurt most by the proposed budget cuts are those who rely on government services and a social safety net for their livelihood. Now if we want to say that these programs need to be fixed so that people aren't dependent on them and can support themselves I'm all in and I'll jump right in and help. However, what I'm hearing sounds more like "these programs need to be fixed so they don't cost us so much...so we should cut them."
I feel like I'm starting to ramble, so I'm going to try to end this soon, but I just can't get over the fact that the House of Representatives seems to be ignoring the fact that these budget cuts have real human impact. People are actually affected by these cuts, and people will suffer if these cuts go through.
We need to fix the budget. Blind slashing is not the way to fix it. Let's be responsible about this. Start by cutting programs that we don't need (such as fighter jet engines that the military doesn't even want). Then let's look at fixing programs what we need, but aren't working right. This won't happen immediately, but if we take our time to do it right our future will be much better than if we rush to slash the budget.
As we approach this shutdown, Tea Party members of Congress are refusing to budge on the budget. They absolutely refuse to compromise at all. (I will note that a number of Republicans seem to want compromise, but are being pressured by the new Tea Party members to refuse any compromise)
On the other side, the Democrats are really bad at compromising. Up to this point the Democrats, led by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were giving all the way. It seemed as if compromise to them meant give in so that a deal can be made. In all the "compromises" so far, it seems as if the Democrats gave in and the Republicans held strong.
Now, as a shutdown looms, Democrats have changed their game, deciding not to give in anymore. The problem is that since they've given and given all this time, they have little to work with. Compromise is about having something to offer that the other side wants, and them having something you would like in return.
Webster's dictionary defines compromise as: "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute." The problem for the Democrats right now is that they don't really have bargaining chips, and the Republicans (guided by the Tea Party) refuse to give anything up.
I think if Henry Clay's quote could be revised today it would be something like this: "Politics SHOULD NOT be about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, it SHOULD BE about governing. And if you cannot compromise you cannot govern." The problem is that politics right now is entirely about ideological purity, not about governing. Rather than compromising in order to actually govern the country, our politicians on both sides are fighting for their ideological purity.
What has happened? Why are we unwilling to compromise?
I think part of it has to do with the fact that we have become so focused on a single issue. Rather than saying "We have a budget problem and we do need to address it, HOWEVER, we also have a country to govern," the Tea Party is saying "We have a moral crisis that has led to overspending, and if we don't address this now, our country will collapse."
I agree that we need to cut back on spending, but we need to be responsible about it. The more I look at proposed budget cuts (including Paul Ryan's proposed FY2012 budget) I see cuts across the board, with little thought as to what is actually being cut. This leads to trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. It's fairly clear that those who will be hurt most by the proposed budget cuts are those who rely on government services and a social safety net for their livelihood. Now if we want to say that these programs need to be fixed so that people aren't dependent on them and can support themselves I'm all in and I'll jump right in and help. However, what I'm hearing sounds more like "these programs need to be fixed so they don't cost us so much...so we should cut them."
I feel like I'm starting to ramble, so I'm going to try to end this soon, but I just can't get over the fact that the House of Representatives seems to be ignoring the fact that these budget cuts have real human impact. People are actually affected by these cuts, and people will suffer if these cuts go through.
We need to fix the budget. Blind slashing is not the way to fix it. Let's be responsible about this. Start by cutting programs that we don't need (such as fighter jet engines that the military doesn't even want). Then let's look at fixing programs what we need, but aren't working right. This won't happen immediately, but if we take our time to do it right our future will be much better than if we rush to slash the budget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)