Kerry op-ed on Libya in the Washington Post

[karynnj]

The op-ed is completely in keeping with his comments on Face the Nation, but he strengthens his comments on getting international backing.

The most important imprimatur should come from the United Nations, where debate should begin immediately over a resolution authorizing a no-fly zone. China and Russia have expressed reservations. If the Security Council fails to authorize action, those of us determined to protect Libyan civilians will face a more difficult choice should the violence escalate.

So our diplomatic efforts must extend beyond the United Nations. The support of NATO and the African Union are important. To avoid the perception of NATO or the United States attacking another Muslim country, we need the backing of the Arab world.
<snip>

The one option that should not be on the table is American ground troops; no one wants to see U.S. forces bogged down in another war, especially in another Muslim country. And, as President Obama has said, we must not deprive the Libyan people of full ownership of their struggle for freedom or give Gaddafi a useful foil and scapegoat.

Perhaps the mere threat of a no-fly zone will keep Gaddafi's pilots from using their helicopters and fighter jets to kill their own people. If it does not, we should be crystal-clear that we will lead the free world to avoid the senseless slaughter of any more Libyan citizens by a mad man bent on maintaining power. We should also make clear that the United States - just as we did in Bosnia and Kosovo - is taking a stand against a thug who is killing Muslims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031004684.html

(The comments by the way are atrocious.)

Here is the National Journal article - http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/kerry-calls-for-muslim-backing-of-no-fly-zone-intervention-in-libya-20110311

[Inuca]

1. Difficult article to read

Still, the specter that haunts me is the same - ordinary people facing off against an autocrat's airpower and well-armed soldiers, counting on the free world to protect them against massacre after we've applauded and bolstered their bravery with our words

Maybe because for the last few days I have this feeling like the world around is coming apart at the seems, and reading this (not to mention some of the comments, though I was forwarned) did not help.

Have you or anybody else around here listened to Obama's presser today? Any comments? I kind of followed with one ear, while also doing something else. The something else included perusing a Kos front page article about the press conference, and most of the comments there did not improve my mood any.

[Mass]

2. It did not either, but I am not sure whether I was mad at the president, the media, or the bloggers.

(a little bit of everything, I guess).

I was already frustrated a couple days ago, when I saw Haas's oped in WSJ glorified on DU. The article was pretty much that Libya did not matter, so why should we care, while it was important to save the Saudi regime and to destabilize Iran. I am not sure that, given the size of Libya, a no-fly zone is something doable, but using the same realpolitik that created the slaughter of the Shia in Iraq, should not be an option, particularly if you have pushed for the upheaval in the first place.

As for the presser, what I got from DU was the question about Manning. Aside that, nothing apparently matters.

[beachmom]

3. I'm against a No Fly Zone. It's war, albeit more sterile than a bombing

campaign or troops. Josh Marshall describes my reticence on this well:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/the_chorus_for_war.php

I mean, we can't fix every country, and frankly we shouldn't. We have financial problems, and I would like to see less defense spending. Does anyone think being engaged in yet another country is good for us? What would replace Qaddaffi? Are we going to take ownership of that? International cooperation is important, but the U.S. would still be in the lead. I hope Gates prevails on this situation, unless something changes which would make me (and a lot of other people) reconsider.

So, I am at odds with John Kerry's stance, which I will call No Fly Zone Lite.

[wisteria]

9. These same questions were thrown about during the upheavel in Egypt,

and these questions didn't appear to matter then. Why is it ok to pick and chose who were are going to support in their fight for democracy? Why was Egypt and its people more important than Libya?

[wisteria]

4. Unfortunately, it appears Gates,Clinton and Obama aren't trying real hard

to help the Rebel forces in Libya.

[beachmom]

5. Sen. Webb just sent an e-mail, and I think it is GOOD that they are being cautious:

No Unilateral U.S. Military Action in Libya

There has been a great deal of debate regarding how the United States should respond to the conflict in Libya.

Military commitments in this region, however small, are easily begun, but very difficult to end. This is something I have stressed for years, and a reality we continue to confront in Iraq and Afghanistan. History shows that this is a region full of surprises.

In response to my questions at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that the U.S. does not know the Libyan rebel groups with any degree of familiarity. Our executive branch leaders are engaged in intense discussions on this point, but it is not a good idea to give weapons and military support to people you do not know, whose ultimate goals may not be supportive of our own policies. Implementation of a no-fly zone or the delivery of weapons to unknown rebel forces could ultimately be counterproductive to U.S. national interests and security.

I find myself in general agreement with positions taken recently by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when it comes to the potential use of our military in Libya. No one wants to see Gaddafi remain in power, but overt military action in this situation should not be done unilaterally and, if done at all, it should be done knowing who we are helping. We should continue to work in partnership with our allies in the region and exercise all of the diplomatic tools at our disposal.

I think there are a number of positions across a spectrum. Kerry is not in the McCain/Warmonger GOP position, but I think Webb here is more cautious than Kerry. Anyway, good discussion. That being the point -- it should be discussed thoroughly before the U.S. does anything.

[Mass]

6. The fact to intervene or not and how is not a discussion that is worth having, but

seeing pols supporting funds for democratization for later abandoning those you have pushed to rebellion because they dont matter is what the rest of the world like so much about the US.

I have never heard Webb vote against one of these funds to push democracy in those areas where it is not culturally existing. I wished he had because it would be a position I could easily support.

In substance, and as much as I agree with the finale position (no intervention) and know nobody who wants to intervene (all I heard of was protecting the civilian populations, and, apparently, and African life is not worth a life in Asia or Europe), Webb, Haas, and others' position is that the only thing that matters is what the US want. How is it different that what Bush was promoting.

Can the US have a consistent policy: either become non interventionist even with money and propaganda, or finish what you do. I prefer the first solution, but at least be consistent.

[beachmom]

7. No, we will never be consistent. The U.S. has never been consistent

because of the nature of our democracy. I think there IS agreement that the way Iraq went down was very, very bad and shouldn't happen again -- as in, unprovoked where nothing was particularly happening in a country to suddenly invade it with shoddy evidence. But apart from that, we will always toggle back and forth between idealism and realism. I err more in the realism direction myself, while using OTHER means to encourage democracy like diplomacy, sanctions, etc. But I don't pretend that it's ever going to be consistent. It depends on so many factors and complexities. Intervene in Bosnia but not in Rwanda. In Afghanistan and Iraq, yet not in Libya (well, maybe it will happen but not some kind of massive bombing campaign).

[wisteria]

8. No surprise that Webb would be cautious, he always has been.

Webb seems to suggest that he knows more than Kerry about whom we may be helping with gaining world support for a no fly zone, and I doubt that is the case. Senator Kerry is not a careless man when it comes to matters of this kind.

[MBS]

11. " " " "" n/t

[wisteria]

10. Our SOS didn't know the rebel groups in Egypt either and there was that

"concern" about the Arab Brotherhood, but yet we did get involved. I never considered the Kerry/McCain position to be war mongering. As a matter of fact, McConnell isn't even certain that assisting Libya would be in our best interests. THAT, is what I think is the true conservative point of view. Never mind McCain's old political points on bombing Iran, I did not read anything in his comments to suggest he thinks we should get involved in another war.