Throughout the months that led us progressively towards a military confrontation against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, Obama has delivered a true course on how a leftist government addresses the issue of war. There are about ten days, while the wind began to turn against the rebellious anti-Qadhafi, Obama seemed determined to keep the U.S.
away from civil war in Libya. In reality, the president was from the beginning willing to enter America into the conflict. He just wanted to make sure that we would in the multilateral framework as possible and that we would avoid the most of behaving like cowboys. His government succeeded.
In its initial phase, at least, our war in Libya apparently responds to the noble ideal of a progressive international interference. She received the blessing of the Security Council of UN. It was approved by the Arab League. It was defended by the State Department diplomats Hillary Clinton, not by the military at the Pentagon by Robert Gates.
She is pursuing a clear humanitarian purpose, it seems more related to U.S. national security. Finally, it was not the air force or marines who launched the first strike, but the French combat aircraft. This intervention, directly inspired by the method of the Clinton years, 1990, mark a dramatic end to the unilateralism of the Bush era.
This time, there is no "coalition of the willing", or contemptuous allusions to the Old Continent, or statements like "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists." Instead, the White House has demonstrated an exquisite respect to international institutions and foreign states, even those that the Bush administration mishandled or simply ignored.
This way of waging war has obvious advantages. It allows sharing with other countries the burden of military action, strengthens our alliances rather than weaken and defuse anti-Americanism around the world. Most importantly, it encourages the European powers to assume their responsibilities in maintaining world order, rather than remain aloof while criticizing the United States.
But this method is not without drawbacks. Like the "war left" require a permanent consensus within the international community, they are usually conducted in collaboration, a train and a senator with a caution bordering on incompetence tactics. And because they serve only as far national interests, we are left to fight with one hand behind his back, eyes riveted on the output, without the total commitment necessary to ensure victory.
American foreign policy was facing the same problems throughout the 1990s, the last period of all-out intervention performed by a leftist government. Regarding the intervention in Somalia in 1992, public opinion has turned against our humanitarian mission after it became clear that, along with the distribution of emergency aid, U.S.
casualties would be inevitable. In the former Yugoslavia, NATO has established a no-fly zone in 1993 but it took two years of a difficult mission of peacekeeping and diplomatic negotiations, during which the war 's is continued for more, before U.S. air strikes do not end up opening the way for a negotiated peace.
In view of our intervention in Kosovo in 1999, caution is all the more. The bombing campaign of NATO accelerated the fall of Slobodan Milosevic and fostered the birth of an independent Kosovo. But the West's intervention in the short term, probably exacerbated the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, boosting the humanitarian crisis it was supposed to end.
We face the same kind of already difficulties in Libya. The goals of our coalition are clear: Obama publicly ensures that Gaddafi has to leave, but Admiral Mike Mullen, Chief of Staff, he does not discount the possibility that the dictator remains in place. We also have a narrow scope: we operate under the UN resolution 1973, which explicitly excludes the deployment of ground forces - which also repeats at will President Obama.
Moreover, our partners have not alleged any guts to fight. Thus, it took just twenty-four hours that Amr Moussa, the new secretary general of the Arab League, said his organization supported a no-fly zone is not about bombing missions [the same Amr Moussa reaffirmed, March 22, its support for the UN resolution].
Time to assemble a coalition, Gaddafi has consolidated its position on the field, to the point that if a cease-fire would retain control of most of the country. Hence the admission of Admiral Mullen, to which our efforts may lead to an impasse, with Libyan dictator fleeing his regime. The last hope of a war led by a leftist government is that of fighting so as virtuous as possible, taking minimal risks.
But war and morality do not mix, and conflicts "low risk" often prove anything but low risk. By exposing the United States to the dangers of a military intervention, Obama has staked everything on the fact that our adventure Jamahiriya constitute an exception to the rule. 
away from civil war in Libya. In reality, the president was from the beginning willing to enter America into the conflict. He just wanted to make sure that we would in the multilateral framework as possible and that we would avoid the most of behaving like cowboys. His government succeeded.
In its initial phase, at least, our war in Libya apparently responds to the noble ideal of a progressive international interference. She received the blessing of the Security Council of UN. It was approved by the Arab League. It was defended by the State Department diplomats Hillary Clinton, not by the military at the Pentagon by Robert Gates.
She is pursuing a clear humanitarian purpose, it seems more related to U.S. national security. Finally, it was not the air force or marines who launched the first strike, but the French combat aircraft. This intervention, directly inspired by the method of the Clinton years, 1990, mark a dramatic end to the unilateralism of the Bush era.
This time, there is no "coalition of the willing", or contemptuous allusions to the Old Continent, or statements like "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists." Instead, the White House has demonstrated an exquisite respect to international institutions and foreign states, even those that the Bush administration mishandled or simply ignored.
This way of waging war has obvious advantages. It allows sharing with other countries the burden of military action, strengthens our alliances rather than weaken and defuse anti-Americanism around the world. Most importantly, it encourages the European powers to assume their responsibilities in maintaining world order, rather than remain aloof while criticizing the United States.
But this method is not without drawbacks. Like the "war left" require a permanent consensus within the international community, they are usually conducted in collaboration, a train and a senator with a caution bordering on incompetence tactics. And because they serve only as far national interests, we are left to fight with one hand behind his back, eyes riveted on the output, without the total commitment necessary to ensure victory.
American foreign policy was facing the same problems throughout the 1990s, the last period of all-out intervention performed by a leftist government. Regarding the intervention in Somalia in 1992, public opinion has turned against our humanitarian mission after it became clear that, along with the distribution of emergency aid, U.S.
casualties would be inevitable. In the former Yugoslavia, NATO has established a no-fly zone in 1993 but it took two years of a difficult mission of peacekeeping and diplomatic negotiations, during which the war 's is continued for more, before U.S. air strikes do not end up opening the way for a negotiated peace.
In view of our intervention in Kosovo in 1999, caution is all the more. The bombing campaign of NATO accelerated the fall of Slobodan Milosevic and fostered the birth of an independent Kosovo. But the West's intervention in the short term, probably exacerbated the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, boosting the humanitarian crisis it was supposed to end.
We face the same kind of already difficulties in Libya. The goals of our coalition are clear: Obama publicly ensures that Gaddafi has to leave, but Admiral Mike Mullen, Chief of Staff, he does not discount the possibility that the dictator remains in place. We also have a narrow scope: we operate under the UN resolution 1973, which explicitly excludes the deployment of ground forces - which also repeats at will President Obama.
Moreover, our partners have not alleged any guts to fight. Thus, it took just twenty-four hours that Amr Moussa, the new secretary general of the Arab League, said his organization supported a no-fly zone is not about bombing missions [the same Amr Moussa reaffirmed, March 22, its support for the UN resolution].
Time to assemble a coalition, Gaddafi has consolidated its position on the field, to the point that if a cease-fire would retain control of most of the country. Hence the admission of Admiral Mullen, to which our efforts may lead to an impasse, with Libyan dictator fleeing his regime. The last hope of a war led by a leftist government is that of fighting so as virtuous as possible, taking minimal risks.
But war and morality do not mix, and conflicts "low risk" often prove anything but low risk. By exposing the United States to the dangers of a military intervention, Obama has staked everything on the fact that our adventure Jamahiriya constitute an exception to the rule.
- One heartbeat away from Socialism - Tea Party Nation (05/04/2011)
- Obama unapologetic over US support of Pinochet (22/03/2011)
- The Market Will Decide Whether Obama Gets Reelected (05/04/2011)
- Obama Stumbling Through Speech in PA... (06/04/2011)
- Corruption, Treason or Sedition in Congress and Harry Reid has the nerve to call the Tea party names (03/04/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment