« Getting Cocky | Main | More reasons to mistrust Facebook »

What I Want To Hear

I'll be at work when President Obama gives his address tonight, but I'm going to try to catch it. (NPR ought to carry it live.) And I've been thinking about the kinds of questions I hope he answers.

  • What vital interest of the United States was threatened to justify ignoring the War Powers Act?
  • What differentiates the situation in Libya from that in Syria or Yemen now, Iran in 2009, or Iraq in 2003?
  • Why did Obama seek the approval of our allies and the UN before -- more accurately, in place of -- the approval of Congress and the American people?
  • What exactly differentiates a war from a "kinetic military action?" More specifically, from the perspective of the people being blown up?
  • If there was such a rush to action that Congress and the American people couldn't be consulted, why did it take several weeks to start moving?
  • Wouldn't it have been more effective to intervene when the rebels were winning, and not when they were on the verge of defeat?
  • Are there any other civil wars or purely internal conflicts that we are considering getting involved in?
  • If this crisis is so important, why does no one want to take responsibility for leading it?
  • Is K-Daffy's removal still a requirement, as President Obama declared on March 21?
  • What do we know about the people on whose behalf we are intervening?
  • More specifically, how certain are we that they will be better than K-Daffy?
  • What, precisely, did you mean when you said the American military "was volunteered" for this action? Please address this in the context of your role as their commander-in-chief. Did you volunteer them? If not, who did?
  • n December of 2003, Libya surrendered its entire WMD program. Later, it paid reparations for its terrorist acts and moved towards being a member of the international community. (Towards, I said.) The implicit quo for that quid was that we wouldn't invade and would let slide those offenses we'd been punishing them over for decades. With this current round of actions, how should other countries with illicit WMD programs (say, North Korea or Iran) act? Should they accept our word that if they start playing nice, we'll let them off the hook.

That's just a few questions, off the top of my head. If I had more time, I'd have plenty more.

And yes, I didn't vote for Obama. I don't anticipate voting for him next time, either. But I'm still an American citizen. He's my president. He's doing this in my name, with my tax money. I think I'm entitled to answers to at least a few of them.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41332.

Comments (50)

Rest assured J it was not f... (Below threshold)
914:

Rest assured J it was not for oil. Barry knows best.

What you want to hear and w... (Below threshold)

What you want to hear and what you would hear if you (meaning anyone in this context) are dumb enough to listen to it, are two distinctly different things. A community organizing socialist/Maoist can't possibly deliver a speech that gives anyone on the right "what they want to hear".

And he probably won't answe... (Below threshold)

And he probably won't answer your questions.

He has two target audiences. His left core and the mushy middle whose votes he needs to win re-election.

As to the former, he'll go on about this isn't like Bush, how it's being done for only good reasons, and how we're being good citizens of the world.

And for the latter, all they really care about is that (1) America 'wins' and (2) not a whole lot of Americans get killed, and Obama will be sure to address both those points. He'll promise victory, but will try to define victory down (contrast with Bush, who had such high hopes he was guaranteed to fail to achieve them) and he'll assure the mushy middle that, unlike with Bush's wars, there aren't going to be lots of body bags coming home from 'his' war.

Too many questions, Jay. Ob... (Below threshold)
John S:

Too many questions, Jay. Obama doesn't need to answer them, he doesn't have "W" as a middle initial. But a hint on your second question: Syria is a no-oil zone.

"volunteer our m... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

"volunteer our military"??? Fuck, what this nit did there was to cede our military sovereignty to a FOREIGN entity. By what Constitutional power can he DO that?

Even thus, the military is always tasked by DIRECT ORDER. No will ya do it, it's ya WILL do it. I seriously doubt there's even one person in this admin who has the vaguest idea of what they're doing. Current events sure don't show it.

2012 can't get here quick enough.

"2012 can't get here quick ... (Below threshold)

"2012 can't get here quick enough."

My only problem with that is I'm still trying to get my tax payments together for 2010! Lousy bastards.

I bet we will hear how many... (Below threshold)
Gladius:

I bet we will hear how many JOBS ER LIVES SAVED...YA RIGHT.

Well, knowing Obomba, he ma... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Well, knowing Obomba, he may not take questions.

If he does, do you really think the MSM will do anything other than help him with the questions? They've done a stellar job ignoring the Kandahar Kill Teams. Why ask serious questions now.

Besides, ask the wrong question and you may end up in the closet.

Anyone got the odds on his ... (Below threshold)

Anyone got the odds on his repeating the administration lie about how this is different than Iraq because it's not "unilateral"?

Libya has the largest oil r... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest oil reserves in the world. The major economies of the world depend so much on oil that some sort military involvement in Libya by those nations so dependent on this oil only follows.

Look at the French and involvement in the Ivory Coast for example. If this country wasn't the largest chocolate producer in the world, then France and the U.N. would have ignored that civil war.

If we want to continue to drive cars and have the sort of industrial economy we enjoy, then American involvement in world hot spots that hold a great deal of the natural resources we use will only continue to follow. Further, this is a golden opportunity to get rid of Gadhafi once and for all, who probably once supported world terrorism against the West despite being an oil billionaire from selling oil to the West. If Mr. Obama gets rid of that guy, then more credit to him. Gadhafi has been a thorn in the side of many presidents.

Mr. Obama has also proved that he will move to defend U.S. interests as much as any other president has. That should also serve as a assuring sign to many Americans, although many on the political left may not be happy about the use of military force.

You missed one.He ... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

You missed one.

He should be asked about rouge elements in Afghanistan that killed civilians and took body parts as 'trophy's'.

http://tinyurl.com/4ahl9la

Not to rip on the Army but the press was 24/7 on the torture, rape, sodomy and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison. Why should this be any less important to them? People actually died here.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting the narrative...Gotta suppress unfavorable news that might reflect badly on 'The Won' who they support.

JT, remember what kind of t... (Below threshold)
epador:

JT, remember what kind of trouble Socrates got into asking all those questions? [oops, another question]

All you'll hear is yada yad... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

All you'll hear is yada yada yada. And NOTHING of substance.

At least Barry is consistent.

I'll save everyone the 15 m... (Below threshold)
PBunyan:

I'll save everyone the 15 minutes of their lives that they'd wish they could get back and just tell you what Bammi's gonna say:

1) He had no choice.

2) It was someone else's fault.

No healthcare questions. No... (Below threshold)
914:

No healthcare questions. No economy questions. No National risk assessment questions. And sure as hell no explanation of his tomahawked spring golf fling.

It's highly doubtful the prompter will be loaded with any logical questions or answers. It's very likely it will be programmed with hype, lie's and propaganda.

Barry once again will deface the nation in flying colors.

Krykee doodle, Jay.<p... (Below threshold)

Krykee doodle, Jay.

You make too many demands upon the Community Organizer in Chief's intellect.

As it is, he will speak for 2 hours, 47 minutes and not say much of substance.

I am wondering if we will h... (Below threshold)
Gladius:

I am wondering if we will hear tonight if America has a responsibilty to protect ( R2P )

Libya has the l... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa and the ninth largest oil reserves in the world. The major economies of the world depend so much on oil that some sort military involvement in Libya by those nations so dependent on this oil only follows.

...

Mr. Obama has also proved that he will move to defend U.S. interests as much as any other president has.

The U.S. receives 7% of its oil from Libya. So, no biggie to us. U.S. interests there are de minimis.

Iraq has the largest oil... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Iraq has the largest oil reserves in the Middle East and the largest oil reserves in the world. The major economies of the world depend so much on oil that some sort military involvement in Iraq by those nations so dependent on this oil only follows.

If we want to continue to drive cars and have the sort of industrial economy we enjoy, then American involvement in world hot spots that hold a great deal of the natural resources we use will only continue to follow. Further, this is a golden opportunity to get rid of Saddam once and for all, who probably once supported world terrorism against the West despite being an oil billionaire from selling oil to the West. If Mr. Bush gets rid of that guy, then more credit to him. Saddam has been a thorn in the side of many presidents.

Mr. Bush has also proved that he will move to defend U.S. interests as much as any other president has.

FIFY.

Sorry, everything except th... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, everything except the last line should be italicized.

"Should they accept our ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"Should they accept our word that if they start playing nice, we'll let them off the hook."

Firing tank shells into crowds of demonstrators is "playing nice"?

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

It has nothing to do with o... (Below threshold)
ck:

It has nothing to do with oil.K-daffy is independent, a thorn in the side of the new caliphate. Iran and Syria on the other hand are the vanguard of the new caliphate. Obama will always side with the new caliphate.

Paul Hooson wrote:<b... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Paul Hooson wrote:

If we want to continue to drive cars and have the sort of industrial economy we enjoy, then American involvement in world hot spots that hold a great deal of the natural resources we use will only continue to follow. Further, this is a golden opportunity to get rid of Gadhafi once and for all, who probably once supported world terrorism against the West despite being an oil billionaire from selling oil to the West. If Mr. Obama gets rid of that guy, then more credit to him. Gadhafi has been a thorn in the side of many presidents.

Mr. Obama has also proved that he will move to defend U.S. interests as much as any other president has. That should also serve as a assuring sign to many Americans, although many on the political left may not be happy about the use of military force.

This might be a discussion to have, but it's completely theoretical, since Obama has said that none of these things is why we are there. We are there for "humanitarian purposes." Unless you're saying that Obama is lying to us about why we're there. I guess we'll learn later tonight.

What, precisely, did you... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

What, precisely, did you mean when you said the American military "was volunteered" for this action? Please address this in the context of your role as their commander-in-chief. Did you volunteer them? If not, who did?


And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally

It means that the international community ask him if he would intervene.

Hyper, "playing nice" with ... (Below threshold)

Hyper, "playing nice" with other nations. That was implied.

When was the last time our military took sides in a civil war in another nation? The Koreas and the Viet Nams were close, but not quite. Maybe Russia right after World War I?

J.

PotUS B.O. is simply showin... (Below threshold)
John A:

PotUS B.O. is simply showing once more that he is a follower, not a leader, with no particular stance. And it probably looked like a sure winner: France and Britain already acting, a bunch of Arabian countries supporting at least "no-fly," etc. But then the Arabs decided that "no-fly" meant only that someone should ask for the pilot flying license numbers and threaten to pull them for reckless flying, the French started to complain that their leader did not wait a year to get a vote from them or something, Italy declared the US should only use bases there under NATO rather than UN auspices, Turkey decided it would go "boots on the ground" to "defend" [oil] ports...

But I do wish people would drop the "ignoring the War Powers Act" bit. That Act provides for immediate military action, which Congress may then debate for up to sixty days before approving or decrying. Ex-Pres Bush essentially "ignored" that by asking approval before extending miltary action beyond the "no-fly" interventions already approved.

I don't know off the top of... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I don't know off the top of my head, Jay.

What I do know, however, is that when someone decides that killing protesters with tank shells and fighter bombers, he/she should be stopped.

As Prof. Cole points out, it doesn't matter what sort of precedent this sets for the UN because the UN is a political entity, not a legal one, and thus does not operate on the basis of established precedent.

"He is exploiting the Peopl... (Below threshold)
914:

"He is exploiting the Peoples freedoms and wealth"

Is Barry talking about K Daffy or Himself??


I seem to have suffered a m... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I seem to have suffered a minor stroke at 7:35 p.m.. That there is some terrible grammar!

Where's Chico? Woop? ... (Below threshold)
BPG:

Where's Chico? Woop?

Crickets................

"Where's Chico? Woop?"... (Below threshold)
914:

"Where's Chico? Woop?"

c

It means that the intern... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

It means that the international community ask him if he would intervene.

So now we take orders from every pissant country in the world?

Screw the "international community," such as it is. They never did anything for us, and never will. Let Europeans fight their own wars, and spend their own money and get their own people killed doing so. Libya is not in our interest.

What I do know, however,... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

What I do know, however, is that when someone decides that killing protesters with tank shells and fighter bombers, he/she should be stopped.

So you joined up after Tianamen Square, right?

As Prof. Cole points out, it doesn't matter what sort of precedent this sets for the UN because the UN is a political entity, not a legal one, and thus does not operate on the basis of established precedent.

"Prof. Cole" is an asshole, and in this case, an asshole making a sophist's argument to avoid the appearance of flipflopping. I live in hope that he someday says something that mortally offends Muslim fundamentalists.

International community is ... (Below threshold)
914:

International community is code word for American/Israel hating liberal self serving intelligentsia that suck like maggots off the public teat at the UN

Thanks, 914. You left out "... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Thanks, 914. You left out "communist fellow traveling," but then you always were of a charitable disposition...

The U.S. receives ... (Below threshold)
The U.S. receives 7% of its oil from Libya. So, no biggie to us. U.S. interests there are de minimis.

Actually 7% is a pretty large chunk. And it affects us even more, indirectly. Just look at how high Libya's civil war has driven up gas prices, on pure speculation alone.

I don't think there's much question that the only reason we care about Libya is the oil there. That's basically the only reason we care about nearly all of the Middle East. If they didn't have oil there, we'd ignore it just like we ignore Darfur, and before that Rwanda.

And this goes for all Presidents, regardless of party. I think we all know that if Bush or McCain were President they would be getting involved as well. I do think Obama deserves credit for getting us in in a way that none of our soldiers are on the ground, and the international community shares the bill and the responsibilty. So it's not just "big bad US throwing it's lone weight around", etc.

Don't get me wrong, those are a lot of valid questions that deserve answering. Just for once, I would love to hear a US politician actually admit that it's all about the oil. But the reality of that is somehow just to embarrassing to tell - once again, for Presidents of either party.

And this goes for all Pr... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

And this goes for all Presidents, regardless of party.

Does this constitute an admission that all of the leftist caterwauling we heard for eight long years was pure unadulterated agitprop crap?

I do think Obama deserves credit for getting us in in a way that none of our soldiers are on the ground, and the international community shares the bill and the responsibilty.

Grow up. A little bombing doesn't accomplish anything, ultimately. And the much esteemed "international community" (i.e., France) will run like scared schoolgirls at the first whiff of trouble, leaving us holding the bag. Similarly, the "international community" won't be sharing the bill OR the responsibility, any more than the Arab League will. They'll book at the first opportunity. They just outsmarted Obama - which is not hard to do, obviously, because he's a moron - and convinced him that whitewashing fences is great sport. We're basically hiring out as Europe's mercenaries.

Not that that won't stop them from crapping on us about whatever we do. For my part, I'd love to see Europeans get their hair mussed for once. Let them pay in blood and treasure for protecting their own interests. Then maybe they'll appreciate all we've done for them over the last half century.

Actually 7% is a pretty ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Actually 7% is a pretty large chunk. And it affects us even more, indirectly. Just look at how high Libya's civil war has driven up gas prices, on pure speculation alone.

Sorry, jim x, but we need to continue your education. Seven per cent is not that much, in fact. The Saudis could make up the difference with no sweat.

Libya's civil war is not, by itself, what is driving up prices. It's the prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia. Oil traders can read maps. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya ... RSA could be next. And that would be a problem for us.

The Rebels are Killing Blac... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The Rebels are Killing Blacks and raping blacks saying they are mercenaries at the same time they are letting white merc go.
Part of the Faction of the Rebels are LISF which have been send troops into Iraq to fight against Americans.
The protesters have RPG and machine guns. You fight with what you have.
If you fire at a tank it can fire back at you.

I am no friend of Daffy. In fact if the Brits want to put a 50 cal round through his head and one through center mass I say go for it.

Now the question is who takes over power in Libya?

If it is LISF well we just gave really bad people the means to fund the destruction of American interest.

If t the Muslim brother hood again American interest are screwed.

As far as the International Community goes more nations went with the USA into IRAQ 43 vs 17 than BHO had.

There was 18 months of debate. There were Plans on how to prosecute the War and Command and Control with mission objectives.

We have none. We went from No fly, to No drive to Air support for rebels
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-deploys-low-flying-attack-planes-in-libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html
AC-10 and C-130 are now flying.


I have nothing to add, thos... (Below threshold)
Chico:

I have nothing to add, those are good questions.

But JT will be a libtard socialist if he keeps asking questions like that questioning the Commander in Chief.

Barry can't articulate any ... (Below threshold)
Bob:

Barry can't articulate any principles behind our Libyan intervention because there are none. Some of our allies favored military action, so we went along. It's like the teenager's defense: everybody else was doing it. The problem is that the US is the only super power and the US is now running the show, whether directly or through the US-led NATO. The American people deserve to know what exactly we're doing, why we are doing it, whom we are supporting and when our participation will end.

Does this constitu... (Below threshold)
Does this constitute an admission that all of the leftist caterwauling we heard for eight long years was pure unadulterated agitprop crap?

You're going to have to itemize the "caterwauling" for me to render an opinion on it.

But I'll tell you what is absolute nonsense - the notion that we invaded Iraq OR are bombing Libya because we care so much about their people.

It's all about oil and resources, and the rest of it is window dressing.

Grow up.</blockquo... (Below threshold)
Grow up.

I'm sorry, do you think it would be *better* in some way if our soldiers were on the ground in Libya at risk?

If so, please explain.

Sorry, jim x, but ... (Below threshold)
Sorry, jim x, but we need to continue your education. Seven per cent is not that much, in fact.

Uh-huh. Right. Tell you what - how about you begin your education on your own? Start here:

If we don't have that 7% which you claim isn't "that much", what does that do to our gas prices? Obviously, it means an increase in prices. Let's say that isn't even a %7 increase - let's halve it, at %3.5 a gallon.

At four dollars a gallon, that's a $.14/gallon increase in gas, right there.

Please explain how that will NOT have a significant impact on our economy.

Whether that impact morally justifies bombing Qaddafi's forces in Libya is a separate discussion - but that is clearly the **pragmatic** reason we are involving ourselves.

Grow up. A little ... (Below threshold)
Grow up. A little bombing doesn't accomplish anything, ultimately.

I mean, wow. I'm still scratching my head over this.

You do remember Bosnia and Kosovo, right? Seems bombing accomplished quite a lot there. Such as, the attainment of the US military's goals without a *single US soldier* dying in combat.

But I guess that can't have happened because Bill Clinton did it, or something.

Bombing in Bosnia and Kosov... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Bombing in Bosnia and Kosov caused more problems than it solved.

We did a great job of taking out the Chinese embassy because we were bombing from high altitude and not confirming targets.

We attacked Serb cities targeting civilian targets far removed from the battlefield.
Kosvo was a perfect failure.

At the outset of the bombing campaign, the Clinton administration said that it was acting to save lives. Before NATO intervened on March 24, approximately 2,500 people had died in Kosovo's civil war between the Serb authorities and the ethnic Albanian insurgents of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). During the 11 weeks of bombardment, an estimated 10,000 people died violently in the province, most of them Albanian civilians murdered by Serbs.

An equally important NATO goal was to prevent the forced displacement of the Kosovar Albanians. At the outset of the bombing, 230,000 were estimated to have left their homes. By its end, 1.4 million were displaced. Of these, 860,000 were outside Kosovo, with the vast majority in hastily constructed camps in Albania and Macedonia.

The alliance also went to war, by its own account, to protect the precarious political stability of the countries of the Balkans. The result, however, was precisely the opposite: the war made all of them less stable. Albania was flooded with refugees with whom it had no means of coping. In Macedonia, the fragile political balance between Slavs and indigenous Albanians was threatened by the influx of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. The combination of the Serb rampage on the ground and NATO attacks from the air reduced large parts of Kosovo to rubble. In Serbia proper the NATO air campaign destroyed much of the infrastructure on which economic life depended.

Had this been a war fought for national interests, and had the eviction of Serb forces from Kosovo been an important interest of NATO's member countries, the war could be deemed a success, although a regrettably costly one. But NATO waged the war not for its interests but on behalf of its values. The supreme goal was the well-being of the Albanian Kosovars. By this standard, although the worst outcome -- the permanent exile of the Albanians from Kosovo -- was avoided, the war was not successful.
...
What is clear is that NATO's leaders believed that concessions were unnecessary because a few exemplary salvos would quickly bring the Serbs to heel. "I think this is . . . achievable within a short period of time," Albright said when the bombing began. She and her colleagues were said to consider Milosevic a Balkan version of a "schoolyard bully" who would back down when challenged. Apparently the customs in Serbian schoolyards differ from those in the institutions where the senior officials of the Clinton administration were educated, for he did not back down. NATO thus began its war on the basis of a miscalculation. It was a miscalculation that exacted a high price. The people of the Balkans paid it.

Yet when the war ended, the political question at its heart remained unsettled. That question concerned the proper principle for determining sovereignty. The Albanians had fought for independence based on the right to national self-determination. The Serbs had fought to keep Kosovo part of Yugoslavia in the name of the inviolability of existing borders. While insisting that Kosovo be granted autonomy, NATO asserted that it must remain part of Yugoslavia. The alliance had therefore intervened in a civil war and defeated one side, but embraced the position of the party it had defeated on the issue over which the war had been fought.

This made the war, as a deliberate act of policy, a perfect failure. The humanitarian goal NATO sought -- the prevention of suffering -- was not achieved by the bombing; the political goal the air campaign made possible and the Albanian Kosovars favored -- independence -- NATO not only did not seek but actively opposed.

.

hcddbz, the argument was ov... (Below threshold)

hcddbz, the argument was over whether or not bombing can accomplish a military objective.

With this in mind, Kosovo absolutely succeeded in removing Milosevic from power. Again, without a single US soldier dying in combat.

The article you're posting from is asking whether or not we should have sent the military into Kosovo *at all*, or instead kept negotiating - which is a separate discussion.

I'll also note a key quote:

Had this been a war fought for national interests, and had the eviction of Serb forces from Kosovo been an important interest of NATO's member countries, the war could be deemed a success, although a regrettably costly one. But NATO waged the war not for its interests but on behalf of its values.

I suggest to you this entirely personal analysis on the part of the article writer, which quotes no one, misses the point. This WAS a war of personal interest for our European allies in NATO. They didn't want a tinpot dictator like Milosevic popping up and taking over. They wanted him out, like an abscess. If they were doing this because they loved Albanians so much, they obviously would have stopped as soon as so many were getting killed.

Their military objective was the removal of Milosevic, and bombing enabled us to help this happen without risking a single US soldier. Thus our allies were extremely appreciative of Clinton's help in this, and consider him the greatest of recent US presidents to this day.

But if the argument is about whether or not bombing accomplished the military objective, removing Milosevic from power, obviously it did.

And did this, again, without one US soldier dying in combat.

NATO admitted to killing 15... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

NATO admitted to killing 1500 Civilians during the bombing. NATO attacked SERB cities power plants and oil storage facility, hospitals, television stations. Yugoslavia says around 5K.


Any combat puts warriors at risk. US helicopters and Planes were shot down so Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines were all put at risk of being killed or captured.

It nice to say whatever but all documents at the time did not call for a change in leadership. The US had gone in before this and made demands of both sides it was rejected by both. Both sides had cease fire and both sided broke it. They felt that they could impose will on by doing the bombing cause Milosevic was bully and would back down in few days, it took 11 weeks. As the ethnic cleansing increase that when NATO charged Milosevic with war crimes.

The objective was Humanitarian effort.
Ethnic cleansing increased during the 11 week period
There was flood of refugees almost 3x during the Bombing Campaign

The stated objective were not met.
In order to have done what was needed we need boots on the ground instead Bombing was done from too high and allowed cover for the atrocities that were to be prevented.


When I o... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:


When I ordered our armed forces into combat, we had three clear goals: to enable the Kosovar people, the victims of some of the most vicious atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, to return to their homes with safety and self-government; to require Serbian forces responsible for those atrocities to leave Kosovo; and to deploy an international security force, with NATO at its core, to protect all the people of that troubled land, Serbs and Albanians alike.

Those goals will be achieved. Unnecessary conflict has been brought to a just and honorable conclusion.

NATO admitted to k... (Below threshold)
NATO admitted to killing 1500 Civilians during the bombing. NATO attacked SERB cities power plants and oil storage facility, hospitals, television stations. Yugoslavia says around 5K.

Any combat puts warriors at risk. US helicopters and Planes were shot down so Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines were all put at risk of being killed or captured.

Welcome to the nature of war.

Again, the original question was not whether we SHOULD HAVE become militarily involved in Kosovo, but whether or not our bombing campaign was effective in achieving our military goals - getting rid of Milosevic - with **minimal** risk to our own soldiers.

It nice to say whatever but all documents at the time did not call for a change in leadership.

Guess what? Sometimes governments put forth the best possible face in their public documents, in order to increase public support for their efforts. Shocker, huh?

I think it's pretty clear that, if our goal truly was humanitarian aid, we would have stopped once Milosevic's people started killing other people in response to our bombing.

If the true concern is a humanitarian crisis, you don't bomb your way out of it. The reality of it:

**Wars are not fought over humanitarian crises.**

Wars are fought because someone wants some stuff, and someone else doesn't want them to get it. In this case Milosevic wanted power, and the rest of Europe didn't want him to have it.

Everything else is window dressing.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy