Bye Bye Bush Doctrine: Obama Got Gadhafi Without A Single US Ground Troop

[Tx4obama]

Bye Bye Bush Doctrine: Obama Got Gadhafi Without A Single US Ground Troop

President Obama proved once and for all that the right wing belief in military might over all else is wrong by removing Qaddafi without deploying a single US ground troop.

SNIP* (*be sure to read this whole chunk of snipped out text at the link below)

President Obama has demonstrated that not only is their better way, but his way is also more effective. This president doesn’t need ground troops to uphold and spread American values. Obama will never have a mission accomplished moment. This president isn’t about using war for political gain.

Obama appears to possess one overriding value that guides both his foreign and domestic policy. Barack Obama is most concerned with doing what is right for the country. For example, Obama caught tons of flak from the left when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for an unemployment benefits extension, but he was doing what he thought was right. Obama caught hell from all sides for the debt ceiling deal, but the president put preventing default ahead of his political standing. He was doing what he thought was right.

People can disagree on what is the right thing to do, but no one should doubt Obama’s sincere belief in doing what he thinks is best for the country. Because of this belief in doing what is right for the country, Obama has thrown away the Bush Doctrine and substituted his own policy that upholds American values and minimizes the use of ground troops.

The Bush Doctrine has been replaced by the smarter, stronger, and more effective Obama Doctrine.

Full article and VIDEO here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-qaddafi-ground-troop

[Arctic Dave]

1. What do we do when someones "gets" our countries leaders?

Does this mean we can kill any countries leaders as long as we don't put military personnel on the ground?

Anyways, your post title is wrong, he did put US military on the ground. He even admitted it himself.

[gateley]

3. Okay - I went looking and found that we had 4 troops on the ground;

Two were explosive experts to check out the US Embassy, the other two were "general security" (I don't know what that means).

But I can find no reference to any troops engaged in combat in any way.

Are these the four troops you're referring to, or were there more?

Thanks.

[Arctic Dave]

13. google: us special forces in libya.

Were do you think they got the training and the munitions to fight MG?

Now if you want to split hairs and say they "weren't in uniform" then thats another matter.

[gateley]

15. Look, I'm not looking to split hairs, I was merely asking for

clarification. I was under the assumption that we sent no ground troops in, but then I saw we had at least four. I was asking if those were the troops you were referring to or were there others? How much more clear could I be?

Since you didn't mention "special forces" in your earlier post that's not what I Googled.

So I Googled U.S. Special Forces In Libya, and besides "reportedly" and a Breaking! report from Alex Jones, not much, and those were "reportedly" there for training the Libyan rebels.

I'm not questioning that although I don't see an official confirmation - what I'm NOT finding is anything to back up your statement that "he did put US military on the ground. He even admitted it himself."

Where can I find that info?

Thanks.

[Arctic Dave]

22. Wasn't trying to be argumentative.

Sorry it came across that way.

I will try to find the video of him saying he sent people there.

[gateley]

23. Don't go to the trouble -- just tell me if he was saying that

we actually sent in troops (in my mind that includes special forces) to engage in combat or just some "experts" like the ones I found the reference to.

Bottom line, I'm of the impression that we didn't sneak a bunch of people in to fight, and that's what I'm trying to understand if we actually did or didn't.

I do think there are some legit reasons to send in special forces (to help train the rebels) but only to a point.

My general sense of this is that I'm happy we did what we did, and what makes this different in my mind is that we didn't instigate it (like we've done historically so many times), that we didn't jump in and try to take over/run the show, and that this was in response to a request for help from the people of Libya.

Overall, what do you think?

Oh -- I also am under the impression that we don't have a lot of contractors there, either (as in Iraq, etc.). Essentially, that we helped, but weren't in it up to our elbows. :shrug:

[Arctic Dave]

37. He said that we had sent in SF when asked at a presser.

Want to say it was somewhere in the range of a dozen or more. What they did is a mystery other then he gave the boiler plate answer of "trainers".

I myself don't think we should engage in armed conflicts to overthrow governments, even as "advisors". It is a slippery slope. Imagine another country doing this, what would our opinions be? What if China wanted to remove the Government of Mexico or any other CA country? We all know how that turned out for them.

[gateley]

38. In theory I agree, but I think for some reason in this instance

it was a good use of our military. Maybe because Obama was under a microscope, but we essentially did what we said we were going to do, and nothing more (except for the "advisors").

When it continued on, I feared we'd make an appearance -- our enlisted people -- so I'm relieved that didn't occur.

[pocoloco]

2. He might get a lot more done if he had less dipfucks

up his ass!!

[Autumn]

4. Was he killed by Obamas orders?

I never saw that mentioned on the news. So do you have knowledge that Obama had it done?

[Tx4obama]

5. It is an 'article'. You can take up any questions you may have regarding it with the author. n/t

[wiggs]

6. Bush Doctrine has to do with "preventative" action vs "pre-emptive." The Powell

Doctrine might be more pertinent...has to do with going to war with all you have, to win.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. Obama is on a roll

[ClarkUSA]

9. Love your sig.

[underpants]

12. Mt. Rushmore?

To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/a-tale-of-two-presidents.html

[ClarkUSA]

8. Has McCain made a comment yet about his former "interesting" houseguest?

Or is he still whining about how ugly THAT ONE's bus is? :rofl:

[Tx4obama]

11. McCain Congratulated Obama. See link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x802415

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. K & R

[lonestarnot]

14. K & R!

[CakeGrrl]

16. Rec

[Mimosa]

17. Subject WAR PORN grave dancing to the 'if Bush were President' test...

Kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

Never mind that 90% of DUers only know what MSM tells them and you haven't followed anything about Libya before 2 to 5 years ago...

I'm fortunate in knowing intelligent Muslims.

[geek tragedy]

18. You're saying any Muslim glad at Qadaffi's fall is stupid?

Wow.

[Swede]

39. Mimosa is way smarter than all of us.

Just told us so.

[ClarkUSA]

19. If Bush were president and did the same thing via the U.N. and NATO, he would be Obama not Bush.

Your attempt at false equivalency is a FAIL.

[Ikonoklast]

25. As we all know ALL of Islam is monolithic.

All Muslims have the very same opinion on everything, just like all Christians do, worldwide.

You are too funny.

[Wait Wut]

28. You know real, live Muslims?!!?

Wow! I guess the ones celebrating in the streets of Libya are stupid and fake Muslims. Thanks for clearing that up! So glad we have one of the elite 10% of DU gracing us with their extensive knowledge of Libya!

I bow to your superiority.

P.S. That was all sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it. I know some intelligent Muslims, as well. They're pretty fucking excited the fucker is gone. Yes, they're very concerned about the future of Libya, but they're hopeful. At least that's what it says on their FB pages. :hi:

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

20. That's why the Repukes are shitting themselves

Can't have a war without their chronies making billions at taxpayers' expense.

[frylock]

21. FUCK YEAH!

:jackoffsmiley:

[former9thward]

24. Continued insults against the Arab peoples.

No, Obama did NOT get Gadhafi. People in Libya did. I know this is a hard concept for people who think no one in the world can even take a shit without the 'help' of the U.S. The NATO effort, which France and the UK dragged the U.S. into, undoubtedly shortened the process. But that is all it did.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Nonsense. The NATO mission would have failed w/o U.S. military technological expertise & hardware.

Ever wonder why EU nations can afford to national healthcare? It's because Americans underwrite a huge chunk of their defense costs and supply technological expertise and tech hardware our NATO allies lack. So, yes, in a very real way, President Obama committed action to ridding the world of Gaddafi. Of course, he did not pull the trigger and gave ample credit to both his NATO allies and the Libyan people in his public WH statement yesterday.

[former9thward]

27. No, sorry they have all the technology.

Yes, I agree the reason they can afford national healthcare is because we have much of the burden of their defense. I have never wondered that for even a minute. But it is not because they can't, it is because they won't. An important difference. We should pull all of our troops from Europe and Asia. If that means those countries can no longer afford health care, too bad. Maybe we can then.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Who provided refuelling and surveillance to allied warplanes? Who operated remotely piloted drones?

Whose remotely piloted drones periodically fire missiles? What other country has drones sophisticated enough to do this? No other country has the all manner of offshore missiles and the warships to launch them. Whose warships knocked out Libya's missile defense system before the first allied planes flew into Libyan airspace? Whose warship was chosen by NATO allies to be the command nerve center?

Furthermore:

From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other country. The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign started on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about 370 attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the Americans have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from other coalition members.

Besides taking part in the airstrikes, the American military is taking the lead role in gathering intelligence, intercepting Libyan radio transmissions, for instance, and using the information to orchestrate attacks against the Libyan forces on the ground. And over the weekend the Air Force quietly sent three of its most fearsome weapons to the operation... Ten days into the assault, the officials said that Libya’s formidable integrated air defense has been largely obliterated, and that the operation was shifting to a new phase devised to put even more pressure on the country’s armored columns and ground troops.

For the Americans, six tank-killing A-10 Warthogs that fire laser-guided Maverick missiles or 30-millimeter cannons arrived on the scene this weekend. The United States also deployed two B-1B bombers, as well as two AC-130 gunships, lumbering aircraft that orbit over targets at roughly 15,000 feet, bristling with 40-millimeter and 105-millimeter cannons. The gunships’ weapons are so precise that they could operate against Libyan forces in cities, which so far have been off limits for fear of civilian casualties.

Air commanders provided an example of the role of American intelligence-gathering. Air Force eavesdropping planes intercept communications from Libyan troops and relay that information to a Global Hawk drone flying high overhead. The Global Hawk zooms in on the location of armored forces and determines rough coordinates. In some cases, the drones are the first to detect moving targets. The Global Hawk sends the coordinates to analysts at a ground station, who pass the data on to the command center for targeting. The command center beams the coordinates to an E-3 Sentry Awacs command-and-control plane, which in turn directs F-16 and Harrier jets and other warplanes to their targets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29military.html

<< We should pull all of our troops from Europe and Asia.>>

Not going to happen as long as the U.S. is recognized by the world community as a "superpower" and the undisputed "leader of the free world."

<< If that means those countries can no longer afford health care, too bad. >>

We're not going to do that to our allies but we are demanding they pay more of their fair share. Of course, the EU is going through bad economic times, so it won't happen until after they bail out Greece. Again.

<< Maybe we can then.>>

Thanks to HCR, by 2014, we will have it, unless Republicans gain the WH and Senate. Then everything Pres. Obama passed will be repealed. Earlier HCR provisions have already kicked in.

I sympathize with your POV, however. Leading the free world has its responsibilities. We fund most of the costs of the U.N. as well, as you probably know, but you can't put a price on doing good things for the world.

[totodeinhere]

41. Nobody is disputing that the US provided indispensable help. But...

if it were not for the efforts of the Libyan people Qaddafi would not have been toppled. So when people at DU say that Obama "got Qaddafi" as if this were done on Obama's initiative, they are wrong and failing to give due credit to the people of Libya for their great accomplishment is wrong.

[ClarkUSA]

42. No one, including the OP op-ed author is disputing that. I also agree with that nuanced perspective.

The OP's exuberantly proud op-ed author would no doubt agree, too, I believe. There was no insult intended.

The Obama Doctrine is nuanced, too. I view what happened in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt as an ultimate global expression of "Yes We Can!".

Did you listen to President Obama's speech yesterday?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x802140

President Obama gave the most credit to the Libyan people, too. Of course.

[totodeinhere]

44. I have supported President Obama's Libya policy and I have said so on this board.

He went about it the right way. He approached the crisis deliberately and thoughtfully. And when he reached a consensus with our NATO allies and with Arab countries he acted in concert with a coalition of other countries. And that policy has been a success although of course Libya has a long way to go. And yes Obama has given ample credit to the Libyan people as he should.

My objection is not with Obama but with people at DU who seem to be trying to give all of the credit to Obama by saying "he got Qaddafi" without even mentioning the role played by other countries and most importantly by the people of Libya.

This is a matter of great pride to Libyans and other Arabs. We run the danger of alienating a prideful people if we seem to be giving sole credit to Obama while ignoring the fact that this was the Libyan people's revolution, not Obama's. One problem in the past with our foreign policy has been the widespread perception that we think that the whole world revolves around the United States. Let's not feed into the perception.

[EducatedYouth]

30. Ignorance Is NOT Bliss Good Sir.

You may THINK that Libya rebels could have accomplished this without our support, and you are perfectly able to believe that BUT the fact of the matter remains that before the United States intervened the Rebels where being fought backwards. Regroup and Refire sir.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

34. Whch is it? Obama is evil and killed Gadhafiy... OR ... Obama had nothing to do with this?

The effort from the LEFT to figure out why Obama messed this up is just as idiotic as what we get from the far right.

[former9thward]

36. How many strawmen are you going to put in one post?

Obama is not evil, I never said so, and he did not kill Gaddafi. The U.S. certainly helped the "rebels" in Libya. I suspect we will regret that action sooner or later. I am opposed to offensive military adventures no matter whom they are "against".

[Union Scribe]

47. And wasn't the original intent to "prevent genocide"?

Now all of a sudden Obama single-handedly toppled and killed a regime?

[EducatedYouth]

29. A teens view on this subject

A ground troop,hit them hard over a long period of time to force them to exhaustion, type of war is no longer effective. Partly because of todays tech. its makes it easy to duck and run and still be able to win a war, and partly because these current wars we are in, the enemy truly has more motivation to win. The United States is using its military in Afghan to fight a (for all intensive purposes) intelligence organization (in terrorist operations). In the midst of this they destabilized a country. Yes, the Taliban did have Civil Rights abuses but in the bigger picture they werent really enough to consituate (Im fifteen and still cant spell. Kinda ironic considering my name) a invasion of a stable country. Libya was a different type of war, where the Civil Rights abuses where enough (in this teens opinion) to take an action but not enough to invade and risk the blow back politically from the rest of the world. So we (in my understanding) acted as a safety net for the rebels. Anyway....I Ramble to much....Back to Afghan. It should have been handled by the CIA to fight all terrorist organizations and take the heads of the organizations out. I believe that would be the least expensive, carry the least amount of loss of life, and overall be more efficient.

[Canuckistanian]

40. The "Bush Doctrine" was written by a RW think tank

Dubya never had a single original thought in his head.

[BlueIris]

43. Yes, I'm sure he went in there and took out the guy personally.

As opposed to, you know, kicking back on the campaign trail while other people conducted the actual operation.

[ClarkUSA]

45. It was President Obama's choice, even if you don't want to credit him with making the right one....

... in the right way aka. The Obama Doctrine.

[CakeGrrl]

46. "Kicking back on the campaign trail"

Are you actually serious?

Name a President who actually entered the field of battle while in office - other than the one from "Independence Day".

:rofl:

So now, you dismiss the President going on the road and taking the AJA directly to the American people in the face of relentless GOP obstructionism and MSM bias as "kicking back"?

Something tells me you wouldn't give this President credit for anything under ANY circumstances.

[GoCubsGo]

48. Just like when Clinton sent troops into Bosnia

Not one troop lost in combat. (A small number were lost in vehicular accidents.) Yet, he was criticized loudly, especially by the right, for sending troops in there, despite the fact that they helped end a genocide. Not trying to take away from our current President here. Just reiterating your point that one side uses war for political gain, and the other does not--at least not in recent history.

[TrogL]

49. I'm a bit confused here

It was a Canadian-led NATO mission that attacked the convoy. Much as I like Obama, how is he managing to claim credit? Or am I missing the bigger picture?

[Major Hogwash]

50. An American drone was flanked by 2 French jets that intercepted Khaddafi's convoy.

That was what NBC reported Friday morning.

When the convoy was first attacked, the pilots in the jets radioed to Libya Freedom Fighters on the ground that several vehicles were trying to leave town headed to the South on the highway. The drone attacked the main body of vehicles, while the 2 jets fired on the lead vehicles. Then the Freedom Fighters that were near the bridge where the vehicles were attacked, sprung from their positions on both sides of the road, opening fire on the convoy. This was the crossfire that the NTC spokesman said on CNN on Friday was what killed Khaddafy.

[KoKo]

52. Yeah...but should NATO be shooting at a "Retreating Army" such as that convoy was?

That seems to be what the UN Investigators and some Human Rights Organizations are asking questions about in their urge for investigations of Ghadaffi's death.

[Major Hogwash]

53. There's a huge difference between someone retreating and someone trying to escape.

In my opinion, the interdiction by the NATO forces were justified.
The NATO forces didn't know Khaddafi was in that convoy.

[Enrique]

51. if Sarah Palin is reading this

she won't know what this is about.