Airstrikes Against Libya -- Welcome to the Brave New World of the Obama Doctrine

[Peter Pan]

Airstrikes Against Libya -- Welcome to the Brave New World of the Obama Doctrine


For a man who ran as the anti-war candidate, President Obama sure is trigger-happy.

We’re now in our third war in the Middle East, and if the rationale for the Libyan War is a guide, it may not stop there. President Obama has opened up a whole new line of work for the U.S. military – to intervene in other countries’ civil wars to protect their citizens from their leaders. But not to worry… he’s going to do it in a limited way – limited mission, limited use of force, limited role in a coalition. No ground troops, hence no U.S. casualties.

But war isn’t a game where you get to kill enemies on a computer screen but don’t have to suffer losses yourself. Real war isn’t clean or neat or over quickly. The fundamental rule of warfare: is things NEVER go as you planned, you have to expect the unexpected. That’s why we have to be clear about both the military and political missions before we go in. They’re bound to change once the real war begins. If you don’t know where you’re headed before you set out, you’ll never know when you’ve arrived.

Both of those missions are muddled with the Libyan. What’s the military goal? To kill Qaddafi? To leave Qaddafi in power but force him to stop killing his people? To back up the rebels so they can defeat Qaddafi on their own? Who’s fighting with us, and who is calling the shots? President Obama? The French? The British? The Pentagon? Secretary Clinton? And by the way, what ever happened to the Arab League? They initially backed a no-fly zone, but are having second thoughts now that people are getting killed. What if Qaddafi escapes to fight a prolonged insurgency?

Even if we succeed militarily, what is the political objective? To turn Libya over to the rebels? We don’t even know who the rebels are! They’re not unified or battle ready. They may be committed, but at this point they’re not capable. Could we live with a two state solution?

Defense Secretary Gates says we will hand over operations in a few days. But to whom? NATO? Alliance member Turkey, was against the Libyan operation from the start. The French? The British? The Arab League?

We learned with Afghanistan and Iraq that the military operation is the easy part, it’s what comes next that’s hard. If you decapitate the government, who’s in charge of running the country? At some point somebody has to put boots on the ground if for no other reason than to facilitate a transition.But there’s an even bigger problem with the Obama Doctrine; the precedent it sets. There are a dozen countries where leaders are slaughtering their own people, and we can’t insert ourselves in all of them. More people have died in Yemen than Libya. Iran routinely arrests and executes its dissidents. Sudan is committing genocide. What about Syria? Bahrain? Ivory Coast? Does the Obama Doctrine mean we should intervene in all of them as long as we do it in a limited way and not send in ground forces?

When I was in the Reagan administration, I drafted Defense Secretary Weinberger’s Principles of War Speech, which outlined the criteria the U.S. should use when committing combat forces abroad. After 241 US Marines were killed in their Beirut barracks by a suicide bomber in October 1983, some in the Reagan Administration wanted to go put more forces into the region, to insert ourselves in to the middle of the Lebanese civil war. Sound familiar?

The military were skeptical, as was Defense Secretary Weinberger. I was Weinberger’s speechwriter, and he asked me to go around the Pentagon and pick the brains of the top brass, the men who had been junior officers in Vietnam. I took their lessons learned and drafted a speech which ultimately became the Weinberger Doctrine; which served as the principle governing use of combat forces abroad throughout the Reagan years. It was later expanded in the Bush administration, with the first Iraq War, and known as the Powell Doctrine.

The Weinberger Doctrine stipulated:

1) We should commit combat forces overseas only in support of a vital American national interest.
2) If we did so, we should do wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning.
3) We should have clearly defined military and political objectives going in.
4) Those objectives and forces required to achieve them should be constantly reassessed and adjusted, to avoid mission creep.
5) We should have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress and be up front about the length and cost of our efforts.
6) We should commit combat forces only as a last resort.

Critics at the time said the Weinberger Doctrine was too limiting. After September 11, the Bush administration discarded it for a doctrine of preemptive war, arguing we needed to fight terrorists abroad so we didn’t have to fight them at home. Fair enough. Every president gets his own military doctrine….until the next president comes along.

And now, nearly a decade later, we’re still in Afghanistan and Iraq, and President Obama has launched a third Middle East War. With it he’s launched the Obama Doctrine – limited war in foreign lands to protect slaughter of the innocents by their own leader. It’s a noble goal. But is it a vital U.S. interest?

Libya’s oil may be a vital interest to France, Britain and Italy. All of Europe may be concerned that a flood of Libyan refugees will arrive on their shores at a time when they’re economically challenged. But Libya is not something we would define as a core American interest.

America’s core interest in the region is the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and the stability of the Arabian Peninsula. If we’re tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in Libya, will we have the resources necessary to deal with crises in the Gulf should they arise?

Maybe everything will go right in the Libyan War, and Qaddafi will be toppled, the rebels form a government, and our troops can come home. But the job of military planners is to plan for the worst, not the best case scenarios. And the worst case scenario for Libya is not a pretty sight.

It’s time somebody took the Weinberger Doctrine off the shelf and dusted if off. Limiting the wars we fight rather than fighting limited wars is starting to look good again.

Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's DefCon 3. She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Monday at 10 a.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3" already one of the Web's most watched national security programs.


Airstrikes Against Libya -- Welcome to the Brave New World of the Obama Doctrine - FoxNews.com

Antiwar as a Senator and on the campaign trail fast to get us in the 3rd war, without a worry of involving congress a norm for Presidents when America in not going to be attacked

[Exotix]

Compromise emerges for NATO role in Libya fight
President says he's confident the U.S. can hand over control of the operation within days


Just in


Compromise emerges for NATO role in Libya fight* - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com


BRUSSELS ~ A compromise is emerging that would see NATO take a key role in the military operation in Libya guided by a political committee of foreign ministers from the West and the Arab world.

The deal is not done yet.
To participate, NATO needs the approval of all 28 of its member nations, including Turkey, which has been insisting on a narrow military mandate and assurances that no occupation of Libya will ensue.


But after a busy day of diplomacy, including telephone calls from President Barack Obama to the leaders of France and Britain, broad agreement was reached for NATO to play an important role in the operation.



The compromise would solve two problems: It would give the United States, which has been coordinating the military effort but is eager to hand off those duties, an organization to hand off to.

A number of European leaders have said that, other than the U.S., only NATO has the capacity, experience and staff to coordinate such an international operation.

And it would provide political cover for NATO, which some say has been tainted in the eyes of the Arab world by its participation in the war in Afghanistan.



Obama, speaking Tuesday in El Salvador, said he was confident the U.S. could hand over control of the operation within days.

He said the four-day assault on Libya, which was authorized by the United Nations, had already saved the lives of civilians who would otherwise have been targeted by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

"When this transition takes place it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone.
It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily enforcing the arms embargo.
That's precisely what the other nations are going to do," Obama told a new conference.



With congressional critics growing vocal about the deployment of American military forces, the president defended the wisdom of the operation.

"It is in America's national interests to participate ... because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that's going through great changes," Obama said.



Earlier Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed the creation of a wider political committee to run the operation, which would include the Arab League as well as NATO members.

"For us, the intervention is firstly an operation wanted by the United Nations. ... It is run by a coalition of member states, all of whom are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," said French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe in outlining the proposal.

"This is, therefore, not a NATO operation, even if it must be able to rely on military planning and intervention capacities of the Alliance," Juppe said.



He said the new body would bring together foreign ministers of participating states — including Britain, France and the U.S. — as well as Arab nations.
It is expected to meet in coming days, either in Brussels, London or Paris.

In Washington, a senior administration official said NATO would play a key role through its command and control capabilities, but that it would be part of a broader international effort. The new committee reinforces the idea that this is an international campaign that extends beyond NATO, the official said.



Under such a plan, the U.S. military would shift to a supporting role, focusing on elements such as jamming, aerial refueling and intelligence support.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to divulge confidential details of the plan.

The goal of the operation would be to protect civilians, not to force a change of government in Libya, he said.

The situation until now has appeared confused at times because of the participating countries' conflicting military goals.



While all the countries in the coalition share a political goal — Gadhafi's removal from power — "not everyone agrees whether this is the military aim," said Shashank Joshi, an analyst with London-based Royal United Services Institute.

"Britain and France want to keep this as an option, because they see it as feasible and viable ... while the policy of the U.S. is that they are absolutely not willing to take military action to further that end," Joshi said.
"They want to set a clear limit to their enmeshment, for symbolic and practical reasons."

Although it has not yet approved participating in the military operation over Libya, NATO did agree on one action Tuesday — to have its warships begin enforcing the U.N. arms embargo.
A flotilla of frigates, minesweepers and other ships already in the Mediterranean has been given the mission.

NATO is expected on Wednesday to again consider playing a role in the primary operation.



Video inside

[ChasC5]

They're just pissed that Obama knows how to do this War thing.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

They're just pissed that Obama knows how to do this War thing.

Howard Dean just pwn'd Pat Buchannan so badly on this Morning Shmoe, I thought Patsy was gonna keel over ...

Buchannan was having another anxiety attack about *Another War* ... Dean calmy stated *We're blowing up tanks with Air Strikes, there's no U.S. Boots on the ground* ...

Schmoe had to immediately go into a commercial break due to the sudden deathly silence as neo-Patsy went into a mental breakdown ...

[mrvette]

The replay from ME, would have blown Dean outta the park.....

I would have pointed out we are at war with ISLAM, and the various 'theaters' of that war don't matter......

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by mrvette

The replay from ME, would have blown Dean outta the park.....

I would have pointed out we are at war with ISLAM, and the various 'theaters' of that war don't matter......

Instead of running your mouth in the usual nonsense, impress us with all that you know about the War Powers Act ... and in terms of the U.S. Constitution ....

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Instead of running your mouth in the usual nonsense, impress us with all that you know about the War Powers Act ... and in terms of the U.S. Constitution ....

Been the same shituation under all the D presidents also....

from VNam onward....nothing new there.....sure it's shakey ground, but the total failure to acknowledge the FACTS of our islamic WAR is very bad news for this country....

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by mrvette

Been the same shituation under all the D presidents also....

from VNam onward....nothing new there.....sure it's shakey ground, but the total failure to acknowledge the FACTS of our islamic WAR is very bad news for this country....

Well, the Newtster has just stated that this action is the worst since WWII ... if I remember correctly, we won WWII ... thanks to the Dems ...

Yes, the neo-nutballs are in full-moon(bat) as we go into 2012 ...

[Peter Pan]

The third war should help keep jobs got to replace those missles fired as we all know that Nobama is in South America giving Brazil 3 Billion to drill for oil, atleast he knows how to create jobs somewhere in the world just not in America

[Scissors]

This reminds me of our operations in Serbia and the surrounding areas which, actually, went well for us.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by Scissors

This reminds me of our operations in Serbia and the surrounding areas which, actually, went well for us.

I do recall those operations, yea I was part of the boots on the ground there, after all it did take American Soliders to make this operation a success, but this was Europe not the mideast that think in 100 year wars

[Exotix]

Gaddafi's son possibly killed

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Scissors

This reminds me of our operations in Serbia and the surrounding areas which, actually, went well for us.

They didn't go well for ME, the taxpayer. I'm still paying interest on every dollar we spent in Serbia, and I still owe every cent of the principal amount as well.

How's that working for me? It's probably working just fine for the 47% of Americans that pay no tax, however. Why should they care?

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Gaddafi's son possibly killed

Amazing what surgical strikes can do without having to send thousands to their death just to find one guy hiding in a Hole!

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Amazing what surgical strikes can do without having to send thousands to their death just to find one guy hiding in a Hole!

The neo-wackos can no longer hide from what they said last week ... now they have to hide from what they said yesterday ... wait for it ... they'll now hide from what they said this morning ... tonight ...

[Z06PDQ]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

They didn't go well for ME, the taxpayer. I'm still paying interest on every dollar we spent in Serbia, and I still owe every cent of the principal amount as well.

How's that working for me? It's probably working just fine for the 47% of Americans that pay no tax, however. Why should they care?

maybe you should just invest in the Military Industrial Complex. I hear it pays a handsome return even after taxes.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

They didn't go well for ME, the taxpayer. I'm still paying interest on every dollar we spent in Serbia, and I still owe every cent of the principal amount as well.

How's that working for me? It's probably working just fine for the 47% of Americans that pay no tax, however. Why should they care?

Did you have the same questions for Bush and his two wars? Or his father and his war?

I'm still waiting to get my money back on the Afghan and Iraq wars.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Did you have the same questions for Bush and his two wars? Or his father and his war?


I'm still waiting to get my money back on the Afghan and Iraq wars.

A: Yes, and yes, alhough I was in favor of a limited retaliation against Afghanistan.....10+ years goes way beyond simple payback/warning not to do it again.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

A: Yes, and yes, alhough I was in favor of a limited retaliation against Afghanistan.....10+ years goes way beyond simple payback/warning not to do it again.

This isn't going 10 years.

[Peter Pan]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

This isn't going 10 years.

It better not because only 51% of Americans are for this and 57% of those for it at the moment are reps, look it up fox has the poll