By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
Back in March, many neoconservatives in Washington were extremely dismissive of the way President Obama was handling the intervention in Libya. They argued that he was doing too little and acting too late – that his approach was too multilateral and lacked cohesiveness. They continuously criticized President Obama for, in the words of an anonymous White House advisor, "leading from behind."
But now that these critics are confronted with the success of the Libya operation, they are changing their tune and claiming paternity of the operation. They are further arguing that if their advice had been heeded, the intervention in Libya would have been swifter and even more successful. But the Libya intervention is so significant precisely because it did not follow the traditional pattern of U.S.-led interventions. Indeed, it launched a new era in U.S. foreign policy.
The United States decided that it was only going to intervene in Libya if it could establish several conditions:
1) A local group that was willing to fight and die for change; in other words, "indigenous capacity".
2) Locally recognized legitimacy in the form of the Arab League's request for intervention.
3) International legitimacy in the form of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.
4) Genuine burden sharing with the British and French spelling out precisely how many sorties they would be willing to man and precisely what level of commitment they would be willing to provide.
It was only when all those conditions were fulfilled that the Obama Administration agreed to play a pivotal but supporting role in the Libya operation.
It is important to emphasize that even though it was a "supporting role," the U.S. was indispensable to the operation. Nobody else could have eliminated Gadhafi's air defenses – and, effectively, his air force - within three days. Without America, the operation in Libya could not have taken place. But the U.S. was also "supporting" in the sense that after these initial strikes, it moved into the background and asked its NATO partners to do the heavy lifting. Thereafter, the U.S. intervened only when it felt it needed to. All of this suggests a very different model for intervention, which I believe is a vast improvement over the old, expansive and expensive model.
The new model does two things:
First, it ensures that there's genuinely a local alliance committed to the same goals as the external coalition. This way, there is more legitimacy on the ground. And if there is anything Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us, it is that local legitimacy is key.
Second, this model ensures that there is genuine burden sharing so that the United States is not left owning the country as has happened so often in the past.
Compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libya operation was a bargain. It cost the U.S. about $1 billion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan collectively cost the U.S. $1.3 trillion. In other words, success in Libya could be achieved at less than one-tenth of one percent of the cost of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not a bad model for the future.
Now there are critics of this approach on both the right and left. Some on the left – the great liberal internationalists – are horrified by the fact that people in Benghazi cheered for French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They think only President Obama's name should be on the lips of the liberated Libyans.But there is actually nothing wrong with a world in which the Europeans are also associated with the cause of freedom and liberty. It means that they will also be more willing to bear some of the burdens and pay some of the costs of intervention. And it means they are more likely to be involved in the difficult process of reconstruction.
The old model of American leadership - where we took all the decisions, bore all the burdens, paid all the costs and took all the glory – has to change. People in Washington are going to have to realize that when other countries step up to the plate, they too will naturally get some share of credit. It's more important that Libya be saved than that Washington is seen as the sole savior.
In the future, we will again have to follow this limited model of intervention. The United States is not going to have the kind of defense budget nor the national will to engage in a series of major military operations in countries that are, frankly, not vital to our national interests. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was very clear and he was right: Libya is not vital to our national interest. The point, however, was that the Libyan revolution was an important event in the context of the Arab Spring and that if we could be helpful, it would be of great benefit to Libya and to America.
The question before Libya was: Could such interventions be successful while keeping costs under control - both human and financial.
Today's answer is: Yes.
For more of my thoughts through the week, I invite you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and to bookmark the Global Public Square.
 |
Post by: |
Yeah Fareed.. like we are more than broke and going to give Libya, an oil producing country, AID from money that is borrowed ! How silly can you be, my deluded friend ??
In the interest of a stable North Africa (that would be everyone's interests, especially for our allies in Europe), intervention was a very good move. We supported a group that was able to pull off a victory and topple an unwanted and unstable leader. Don't think this will be soon forgotten by the Libyans.
You do realize that none of these countries are going to be more stable...if anything look for Spain, Italy, or Greece to plunge into revolution.
The best thing America could have done was nothing, and to walk away from the chaos that is the middle east.
Sure, we have yet to see what kind of government the Libyans will install but I would be willing to wager it won't be as anti-Western as the previous regime. This doesn't hurt Europe in the least. What hurts Europe would be an influx of Libyan emigrants as a result of a failed revolution. This would seemingly prevent that trend, or at least slow it. PIGS were in trouble long before the current fight in Libya. This doesn't change that, but see 2 sentences ago.
We will only become bogged down in another expensive civil war with no plan or time table for victory. Frankly, I do not care about Libya or Libyans and I do not want to dump more money down another rat hole. It's not my problem and I do not want to spend my money to fix it.
"Don't think this will be soon forgotten by the Libyans." Yeah – this will last about as long as Patriotism lasts in a Liberal – and that's about as long as it takes them to find fault with the USA. Please don't be foolish – we are not getting the full story from the media – these people still hate the west.
Hey GIVEMEABREAK, how long does patriotism last in a liberal? Do you mean liberal as in left-wingers? or do you mean liberal as in right-wingers? who will NEVER admit, and probably don't even realize themselves since they aren't about being EDUCATED, that the economic model that they hold so dear is called "neo-LIBERALism". Maybe you are talking about the right-wingers since their patriotism is ALWAYS based on stuff like "us vs. them" fallacy and lots and lots of fear and bigotry stemming from absolute ignorance about EVERYTHING. What else do you expect from people who put blind faith in everything and everyone they believe in, while being anti-intellectual and anti-reason.
Kit, your a perfect example of what is dragging this country down. People who don't give a crap about anyone but themselves have ruined our economy. Folks who think like that should go live somewhere else, where they can be by themselves and don't have to be part of a civilized society. And they shouldn't waste time trying to share opinions on internet forums with people they can't be bothered to care about.
The Author predicts that the neocons will claim credit after criticizing the strategy. Lo and behold here they are!!!
Maurice, you hit the nail right on the head.
Kit represents Americans who has poor reading comprehension and does not read enough. An example of poor comprehension: America's part in the operation was the air strikes. Our military involvement is now over. And as Fareed had stated in the article, the French will take the lead role. How is that being dragged into a civil war? And by the way, who is to say there will definitely be a civil war? Maybe it will, but maybe it won't. An example of not reading enough: Kit either doesn't know or doesnt' remember about Lockerbie. Kit also doesn't seem to know that Ghadafy has been funding chaos all over Africa, which creates an environment where anti-American groups could operate and hide there. Kit also represents Americans who really do not understand how to get along in a global world arena. Kit would've fit nicely in with the Neville Chamberlain crowd and the Isolationalist during World War II. Just hold onto your own purse strings tight, close your eyes and look away so that the bad guys will ignore you and leave you alone.
it will be forgotten as soon as they get what they and sharia law is est. Read your history
Even commentators on CNN are saying we know little to nothing about the rebel groups. Let's wait and see whether the replacement is any less unstable or unwanted, before we start the celebration.
Aren't we putting the cart before the horse. I don't think we know anything about the rebels, yet. Does anyone need to be reminded of the mission accomplishment speech. Besides it was the rebel group who bleed for this attack. Please don't let EITHER side try to take credit or use this for political gain. It is horrible to take credit for it, when we had little to nothing to do with it.
Kit is riight, who cares, let them solve their own problems. We have plenty of problems in our country that our resources should be spent on.
Alex, Do you realize what the purpose of the US military is? It's to defend the US against threats. Not to protect countries in Europe. Not to create a "more stable" Northern Africa...which doesn't have anything to do with our national security. Obama (along with the neo-cons in the Republican Party) is a warmonger. Plain and simple. Obama loves the idea of world goernement and the UN. That is why he jumped aboard this. As I recall over 8 years ago, we had easily toppled Iraq's gov't....only then began the real trouble over there. Get ready for serious guerilla warfare and more US militarism in Libya. This effort on the US' part was a complete waste. We need to quit intervening in other countries' affairs and mind our business.
Maurice, your response is about as anti-intellectual as it gets. You are obviously clueless about the Muslim agenda and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is already demonstrating its hostility in Egypt against Israel, Christians and Westerners. Islam is not just another religion. When the dust settles, all Western countries are going to be dealing with the advance of Shariah and Islam in the Middle East. This is not a secret. It's public and written in their doctrine for all to see who are willing to look at it.
I believe that's what we said when Ghaddafi was installed in the first place.
Most people have no idea what the rebels want. Many are associated to extremist and anti-african groups, pro-arab groups. A success isnt simply eliminating ghaddafi, but allowing for greater freedom in Libya. This has not yet happened. Also it should be noted that the US has intervened using similar methods before. The funding of afghanistan rebels in the 80's against the invasion of the USSR is a similar intervention method that was used in Libya. While it costs less no one knows if it will truly be successful. It is somewhat worrisome and annoying that Fareed fails to realize past interventions by the US and their outcomes.
Maurice,
I would love to read a book more about your views on liberalism/democrat and conservative/republican, any recommendations?
@Jeff: A destabilized North Africa is a threat to the West through providing terrorist groups a new safe haven to train, recruit and plan missions. Gadhafi has long been a sponsor of terrorism against the West. The West providing support to the rebels generates several benefits that protect the US and its allies: a positive view of the West from the rebels and their allies; a stable country with less likelihood of terrorist activity; and positive relations with key Arab nations. Protecting the US doesn't just happen within its own borders.
Phyler – you assume too much. Having deployed over there on three occations, I can assure you the majority of the citizenry in most of these countries are not fanatics and do not want to live under sharia law. Just because a few groups would seek to imose some form of radical Islam, doesn't mean they will succeed. Indeed it appears that the Arab Spring seems to be more about civil rights and liberty than about any religious ideology.
Gee, what an air-headed response. You need not forget who we're dealing with over there – Muslims!
Interventions is always good when a country has oil. This is nothing more than neo-colonialism of which Obama has shamelessly attached his face. Those of us who voted for him did not expect that he or the power structure who represents would simply add a cosmetic facelift to the policies of the regime. In fact, Americans are the ones who are controlled by a dictatorship. It just happens to be incorporated!!
A stable Africa – are you dillusional? If anything, this has created more uncertainty in Libya than anytime in the past 40 years.Ghadafi was ruthless, but he put a lid on numerous terrorist facions and tribes, including Al Qaeda. With a rag tag group of young rebels with lost of guns running around and no security infrastructure, the country is now ripe for the growth of numerous groups, including Al qaeda.
Libya is #18 in oil production, that's like WY and ND combined. Not a major player. Until he wobbled, nobody paid him any mind, other than the fashion industry. If Obama does an endzone dance on this, I'll puke.
I hate to bust Freakie Azikie bubble, but all this Arab spring stuff is the result of George Bush's policy of democratizing the Middle East. How quickly they forget when the liberal/progressives are so enamored with Obama.
chatmandu002 wrote: "I hate to bust Freakie Azikie bubble (CLEVER, FOR A 9 YEAR OLD), but all this Arab spring stuff is the result of George Bush's policy of democratizing the Middle East. How quickly they forget when the liberal/progressives are so enamored with Obama.";;;;;;ACTUALLY GW BUSH'S 'DEMOCRATIZATION' BEGAN AND ENDED WITH HIS ADMINISTRATION'S SLOPPY AND EXPENSIVE ADVENTURE IN IRAQ. HE WAS OK WITH EVERYBODY ELSE IT SEEMS.
I saw one of the Lybians in front of Gaddafi's compund wearing a Jon Bon Jovi T shirt- where there's hope.
scat398 wrote: "The best thing America could have done was nothing, and to walk away from the chaos that is the middle east.":::::NOT UNTIL EVERYONE IS DRIVING A CHEVY VOLT OR A NISSAN LEAF. UNTIL THEN........
There is NO stable North Africa when another nation ruled by Sharia law exists. This is a bad thing. Obama decided to go to war in order to establish another Islamic state in the middle east. Are we really still questioning this doofus's agenda?
I'm with Maurice.. and so are a lot of other people i know. that thought process needs to be eradicated from existence.. embarrassing our country – and our kids.. produced by the failed policies and ideologies of an older separatist generation.
Couldn’t agree more with Maurice’s answer to Givemeabreak. Every word is in place and meaningful.
Where were you all when Bush got us into Iraq???? What happened there? Or were you screaming at those who disagreed with war and didn't believe in WMD as being unpatriotic and not supporting our troops. Where were you then?
Scat, we don't know yet the relative stability of the new nations being formed, but why are you so sure they will be less stable than the ones now in power? Please provide supporting evidence for your claim, since I find it hard to believe that you could find anyone less stable than Daffy.
I honestly don't see any "new" policy. I see the complete deterioration of old foreign policies across the middle east, and nothing out of the white house explaining what they are going to do about any of it. It looks like Israel is on their own this time. And the world economy is going to ruins. I'm getting the feeling that someone is asleep at the wheel.
Way too early to say this intervention is a victory. Usually when we intervene in other country's problems there is some kind of blowback. Libya could end up with a worse tyrant in charge as a result. We are never going to mold that region into a democratic utopia and the sooner we realize that the better.
You're a little premature in your declaration of victory. Wait until the last shots are fired, and a new government is established before you start making plans for brunch with Libya. Chances are they will not be a pro US state. The events of the Arab Spring are far from over, and I doubt the results will be be favorable from our perspective. Egypt has already begun to see a greater influence from Hamas the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Libya is likely to be ruled by a group that is directly tied to Hamas and Al Queda. If you see this as a victory for the US or it's allies, you aren't looking in the right place.
Apart from Obama's statesmanship in being able to pull this off from behind the scenes, the biggest gain is in letting the Libyan people take the credit for their accomplishment, and recognizing Europe's support up front, rather than as an afterthought. America is overdue for a dose of international humility after 8 years of Cowboy George. And if you follow the international media, the rest of the world is highly impressed with Obama's muted actions in Libya.
Stupid is...stupid does.
..or in your case.....writes.
Actually most of the American "aid" money will come from frozen assets of the Libyan government.
Ghadafi's froozen account is sand in the sea with U.S aids. A tiny portion of it is the U.S's old war weapons from WWII or VietNam's. The remaining aids are from the money that Obama borrows from China with high interest or bonds which we can not buy it back for the next 50 years. The China collectors are in the US homes, what the hell are we doing? WE ARE MORE THAN BROKEN ??????? Get it! The US worker class is very happy because this stup^d president is forced NOT TO INVOLVED in Lybia and Egypt. It is EU turns to pay the price because they were French and Enland colony anyway. STOP THE WORLD POLICE jobs, we are debted over our heads and the next two generations. No matters what Obama says WE MUST STAY AWAY FROM TROUBLEs, and bailout Obama's brotehrs and sisters in Mid east .
No it won't. That money is being claimed by the new Libyan govt as their asset. The aid is not coming from frozen assets.
Noobam, You know Jesus was from the middle east, right?
Dan... You do know that Jesus was from the third shelf of the "fiction" section of the bookstore, right?
Noobom: China only has lent us 8% of what we borrow. They are small potatoes compared to the largest group: the American people (Savings Bonds, Treasuries, etc).
I love it Nick you hit the nail on the head!
I believe that a lot of the money and maybe most of the money we'll be giving the Libyans will be their own. I think that we have $37 billion in their assets which we froze earlier this year. By giving them that and buying oil from them I think we can jump start their economy again. I mean my fingers are crossed but I believe that this may really be a very cheap intervention just like Mr Zakaria said.
Let's just give them $36 billion and repay ourselves the $1 billion it took to help them. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.
I've been watching Al Jazeera- they just had some European dude saying that the bulk of Lybian frozen assets is held by the US; but he named 11 or 12 other countries and the amounts they hold. i.e. France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and so on. He also said that the UN is talking with one "Lybian transitional group" to see if they are a viable group to release those funds in increment's. Apparently the UN doesn't want to jump the gun and give it to worse crook than Gaddafi. No one seems to be objecting to giving them THEIR money; but TO whom. I think we ought to deduct what we spent , give them their money and they sell us some real cheap oil for our help. They can sort out the rest for them selves.
Jim, who told you that the government is broke? You are clearly not paying any attention. The US government has plenty of money. The current financial debate isn't over our government being broke or not. No, the debate is an idealogical one over whether the government of the richest nation in the world should walk around in sake cloth and ashes, which is what the Republicans want, or whether the government of the richest nation in the world should have the resources to help solve the problems faced by all of its citizens, which is what the Democrats want. Again, our government is not broke, that's right-wing mythology.
Do you really believe what you write?
Absolutely. I'm extremely tired of hearing the right wing propaganda machine talking points parroted back at me from people who's interests would be best served by NOT listening to these lies
How dare you to use facts to counter the republican argument of verbage....
The argument is not so much about how to FIX the economy as it is about WHO gets to control the economy.
Free enterprise – my butt!!!
Mike – It is beyond clear what the Democrats want, which is to make enough empty promises to the perfect mix of lost souls (unemployed, blacks, hispanics, elderly, sick) to guarantee them an electoral victory. Then, when elected, they will do their best to cover up the fact that the lives of those exact people are worsened every day the Democrats hold office.
Well said!
Speaking of mythology, do you read your own posts....you're out there buddy
Mike your right we are not broke. Our problem is we keep spending more money than we bring in. And to make up the difference we borrow money from the Chinese. Just bad management. Right now we are behaving nationally like California is at the state level. Supporting liberal benefits that we can't afford. We have to tighten our belts and force people to get off their butts and try to get a job. Make meaningfull reductions to welfare. People off welfare will take any job they can, thus eliminating the need for illegal immingrants. Solves multiple problems.
Wow, a well thought out and sane comment on a blog here. No individual or group of individuals can change the conservative base for 3 reasons – bigotry is at work, fear mongering is at work, and the majority of the 'base' is uneducated and intends to stay that way. All people become cognitively dissonant if they have to face a reality that proves they have been wrong and duped. The seeds for communism have been planted in this Country by the right wing. When the vast majority of the population has been raided of wealth, there will come a turning point where the victimized turn on their abusers and eliminate them. This is history, and has happened many times before in this world. Regardless of what motivates the right wing to believe they should force all to have certain religious beliefs and have all the control over the wealth – it will be their downfall.
Yeah, just tax workers and borrow money at all cost. Who cares about debt. Exactly the way liberals live their lives. Just get another credit card and if you need to just mooch off the gubment cheese. Responsibility? That is the government's job.
Complainers should realize China holds about 8% of the debt. Not enough to get overly excited about.
What the heck have you been smoking? Claims that we are broke is not a Republican thing...it's a Democrat and Republican thing. Our country has been the most prosperous on earth, but we have spent way beyond our means and we are not exploiting new resources to continue our prosperity. Meanwhile, our main rivals, such as Russia and China have exploited their resources and are booming. We are giving all our prosperity away to the Middle East to China and others... It's amazing how you claim to be so educated and don't have a lick of common sense. You cannot keep spending more than you take in indefinitely.
I see those who write negatively about your comments produce *no* counter-arguments other than "you are crazy". All of you ... even if you by into the partisan tone on the post the fact remains ... The US government is not financially "broke". This might be hard to believe by the Limbaugh/Beck crowd however.
Right you are, Mike K.
The facts:
The national debt is over $14.6 trillion.
National GDP for 20120 was $14.5 trillion, making the debt to GDP ratio over 100%.
Federal spending is $3.6 trillion per year and revenue is $2.2 trillion per year, which means the federal deficit is $1.4 trillion.
I don't know what your definition of broke is, but to me, that's broke as a joke! At some point other countries are going to recognize that the US will not be able to pay it's obligations without doing what Alan Greenspan suggested a few weeks agon on "Meet the Press" and just print more money. This will only devalue our currency even further and cause inflation. Eliminating the deficit is the only viable solution to our debt problem. I'll leave the politicians to argue whether that comes from decreasing spending or increasing revenue. Our government needs to learn the hard lesson that so many Americans have been faced with the past few years: you can't live beyond your means forever.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem!! LOL!
yea – we are not broke - as Geitner says – just print more money.
We spend more money than we make - but we are NOT broke? Wake UP and smell the roses. You can only borrow so much - then it comes due and you have to pay it back. There seem to be no plans anywhere to quit borrowing or pay back a dime of what we owe.. but we are not BROKE? IDIOT.
I consider myself fairly liberal. Always have. Always believed in the idea of a safety net. But sooner or later, a couple of things can't help but become clear. The Federal Government borrowing money makes us all poorer by devaluing our currency and making our paychecks worth less and less every week. It's really very simple mathematics. Okay, it's ultimately very complex mathematics, but it's based on simple concepts. The Federal Government borrowing money is taking money directly out of our pockets and putting it into the pockets of already superwealthy bankers in the form of interest payments. What's the interest payment on 14.7 TRILLION dollars? And who's collecting it? As a liberal, I'm DEEPLY opposed to the idea of stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Can't see why this isn't more obvious to more people. Bankers pay for campaigns (Both Dem AND Rep) and in return, both parties see to it that banks continue to absorb wealth in astonishing amounts. Wake up folks. The middle class is dying, and deficit spending is the cause.
"Sake cloth?" Is that the latest fashion trend in Tokyo?
ditto. Fareed thinks that this is the end of our role. Civil war will break out and we will end up spending another few billions on aid and deploying troops. He is making such a stupid point that oh look, it only cost us a billion dollars so we should keep doing it. Fareed, please go back to India along with your stupid ideas. specially the one about having a Prime Minister in US.
Ah, nothing like a little casual racism to inject into a serious debate. What a very helpful addition.
juan dont you think u should go back to whichever latin country ( mexico?) you or your ilks came from before asking zakaria to go back to India?
Why you did not tell former President Bush that when he started the two wars? You need to think before you write or talk. You people bringing this president down even though, he is trying his best.
USA is a capitalist country. The intervention around the world from the USA is not only because we want or accidental or good samaritan. The military interventions no matter the kind of intervention policy it is used. Using less expensive strategy or not, or George Bush or Obama strategy. The interventiont is necessary. Otherwise how come the investors would keep investing in Wall Street if they do not have the assurance that the country is protecting their investments...Did you get it??!! If so Why not use a more safe and less risking policy like the one President Obama is using. At least the profit of the investments will not be eaten by long term and compromising war...with other multiples side effects. Like the loss of thousands of young lives.
Juan, Fareed has more brains in his pinkie finger than you do in your whole body.
Racism?...sounds more like locationism to me
Juan, you are just not intelligent enough to participate in the discussion without insulting someone. The internet is full of trolls like you.
You know if Obama cured cancer, brought the dead to life and Jesus came down from the heavens then people would still try to find some fault with him and declare him evil. People on here have no so hidden agenda and the main one is is to make sure another minority wins office.
With so many accomplishment this president has done then history with so many ignorant people who have constantly tried to have him fail, I am sure he will be the first out of many minorities that will exceed at his position..
people like you reassure all of us that racism is alive and well here in America – having a Black President has certainly opened up the can of racist worms. the only people who do not think that racism is coming out of the closet are the racist. It has always been there, but for the past few years people were a bit cautious about airing their opinions – now you all just assume we all feel the way you guys do. Wrong Oh Buddy -
Fareed is contributing something to the debate; you seem to only contribute hate and negativity.
You first Juan. Fareed has one of the best foreign policy minds out there. I'll trust him much sooner than your poorly thought out prophesies. Thanks Fareed!!
Not intending to evaluate this article, but this is not a shift in policy. France and NATO are taking and did take the lead in Libya. France has a greater strategic interest historically than the U.S. That is reason enough for the U.S. Not to drive intervention. NATO is the U.S. We provide over 75% of the resources and capabilities of the alliance. If you look at the statistics of the military missions executed during this revolution by the Libyan rebels, the planes, weapons, and people are U.S. resources operating under the NATO flag.
juan.this ia a place for respectful debates and ideas ,uncivilized people like you are not welecome here.check fox news please
@Jim, sure, America's broke and the mission in Libya has cost over $1 billion. You get your money back. Remember Libya has some $30 billion worth of assets frozen in the U.S.Of course the Obama-Administration had calculated meticulously the possible gains out of this mission. The costs will be deducted from the frozen assets. War is a tough business and no favours are rendered!
Broke or not, sometimes you have to spend some money as an investment in the future. The possible expansion of democracy in the Muslim world at a bargain basement price is a sound investment. More than that, we did it without adding to the U.S.' "bad guy" reputation with other Muslim countries.
Some people still think they can buy a stable middle east. Ha!
Fluffy bunny, "buy" is the wrong word. The US is not buying somebody off. It is building or developing.
Gotthunbs: but no brains.
@Howard: I agree completely with both your claims. Even if America eats that 1 billion, it was a very good investment because of the possible returns: a more stable north Africa which will lead to less safe-havens for terrorists. Add to that the fact that there was zero loss of American lives and you have the bargain of the century. I, for one, applaud the way our President handled this situation.
One gets the feeling that if Barack Obama solved world hunger folk like you would find sopme way to disagree. Fareed is right. Maybe if we show people in the Middle East that we wish to live in peace and want try to manipulate them for their resources or help Gaddafi types stay in power; they might not want to run airplanes into our building's. America is supposed to lead by setting good example's not by bullying and coercion people. President Obama did exactly what he was supposed to do. By the way did you notice the price of oil went down?
Thank you... Thank you.... Thank you....
the price of oil went down when S&P lowered the credit rating, making the stock market take a nose dive, causing people to be afriad to spend their money, thus lowering demand for oil. When supply outweighs demand, there is a surplus and the price decreases to try to get back to equilibrium.
and another thank you.
Whoa, "people are afraid to spend money so oil prices came down". Wow, so why the heck was it over 4 dollars a gallon at the start of the recession? When NO ONE was spending money and markets were at its lowest....
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
"One gets the feeling that if Barack Obama solved world hunger folk like you would find sopme way to disagree."
--
I get the feeling that's way a more likely scenario is that Obama simply makes a statement about how he is anti-world hunger, the world solves its hunger problems, and then you give Obama credit for it.
--
"Fareed is right. Maybe if we show people in the Middle East that we wish to live in peace and want try to manipulate them for their resources or help Gaddafi types stay in power; they might not want to run airplanes into our building's."
--
They run airplanes into our buildings because of a lot more than just Ghaddafi, who we actually helped to begin with. Until we are willing to say that the Israel-Palestine conflict is none of our business, there will be terrorists from the Middle East targeting America. Terrorists pop up from any region in the world, including our own. The more we poke around, the more of them will want to target us. But remember, we helped Ghaddafi to begin with. We made similar claims concerning democracy when we helped him gain power. Now we're there again saying it again to get rid of him. And the timing of when we decided to help the rebels? The decision came AFTER Ghaddafi lost control of major oil production plants to the rebels. Thus, the deal he was giving us on oil became worthless. Then we decided to help the people who DID have control of the oil plants (the rebels). Don't think the rebels are stupid.
--
"America is supposed to lead by setting good example's not by bullying and coercion people."
--
Words are a form of coercion, too.
--
"President Obama did exactly what he was supposed to do. By the way did you notice the price of oil went down?"
--
What he is supposed to do is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, he should be getting us OFF of oil, not making it more tempting for us to stay on it by making lower oil prices a goal. He should invest in mass transit to reduce oil dependency. Getting us off foreign oil isn't enough. We need to be off oil altogether. Obama, like all the other politicians on both sides of the aisle, doesn't seem to get that.
Thank you. One for President Obama again! He is doing the right thing. Obama 2010!
And ANOTHER BIG THANK YOU!
Sorry about the typo:) OBAMA 2010!
Cannot type this morning; typo second time. WE WANT OBAMA 2012!
9/11 was an inside job
When Obama makes recent speeches concerning "debt crisis", and says things like we won't pay the military, we might not send out social security checks, we might have to change medicare, medicaid, then a few days later I saw him make a comment that this last '"financial crisis" was worse than the "great depression", he's trying to instill fear into people to "better control them". Afraid to tax the rich, "they might not like him". I won't follow him up that mountain. American tax payers! where is your money really going? Obama needs a long vacation.
I can kinda see Kit's point, though it shoudn't have been said so tactlessly. What's going on in Libya was for Libya to handle. Gadhafi's fangs were pulled back when Reagan was president and there was no need for us to be there. Gadhafi didn't have the power he once had to affect anyone outside his own borders. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
The same could have been said of Iraq.We had shattered Saddam's army in the Desert Storm operation.He and Iraq were no threat to us.What a total The funny thing is,people who are criticizing the Libya action cheered when we went to Iraq.
its much easier to "share the burden" when taking on a country that attacked no other country
O.K. Jim
I love guys like you. You throw stones but offer no suggestions.
Let's hear what you would have done. Would your plan have cost us less money? Or would it have been for more money and brought us better results IN DIRECT PROPORTION to your additional spending?
How much money should we have spent and what would we have gained? I await your reply with baited breath...
I can'T wait for america revolution.. we need it so bad in here as well. VOTE RON PAUL FOR 20012
Doesn't matter how much the tax payer have to pay....as long as our oil industry get its share of the "light and sweet" very profitable oil reserve of Lybia...(AKA interest of America)
The US has wanted Gadhafi out of Lybia since at least the Reagan administration, if not before. When the Lybian people finally revolted, the sitting US President, Obama, took the correct course of action. Leadership does not always mean take charge. Obama's leadership was giving the people who wanted to acquire freedom for themselves the structure in which they would succeed without undermining their ownership of the operation. Furthermore, the integrated coalition approach builds stronger ties with Europe and does, as stated in the article, prevent the US from paying for all of it.
Why are you griping?
Excellent, intelligent, and informative post. Too bad the blind still won't see it and those who can not comprehend, will still not comprehend.
We had no business being involved in this to begin with. France and the UK are the ones with interest there. And we're paying for it. And sending ANY aid there is ridiculous. Just what this administration needs to do ... borrow more money.
Hate to see EU getting the oil for doing the heavy lifting.. that gold mine should have been ours..
Haven't you heard? Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are going to solve our oil problem and bring the price down while making sure we get all our oil from domestic sources. While making sure there is a pig in every poke.
I think other countries still don't care. Nothing changed except for the fact that now we don't care ether.
Other nations shared the burden?? Your joking right? NATO is 80% funded and 60% staffed by the USA. 70% of all combat missions in Libya and the ordnance expended were accomplished by USA. We shared the Libya mission with ourselves
Fareed,.. I have grown tired of your Obama cheerleading tirades. Please post your resignation and take a job at the DNC.
Delusional is a better word. CNN are they still on the air. Looking at the newsr ratings, just barely. Obama has failed miserably in all of his foreign policy foray's unless he is on vacation.
tea party terrorist...Obama 2012. Clinton 2016 & 2020....
It really sux when Obama slam dunks another 2 points, doesn't it? Go to Faux, fool. You are convincing no one here.
Hey Ernie- Obama's foreign policy sent the Seals at that rat Bin Laden. Your point is...
Libya sells 98% of it's oil to Europe, so really, the aren't all that important to us, but supporting Arab nations pushing for a democracy is.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
Congratulations on figuring out how to copy and paste. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation?
You made your point, half-wit.
Jim, you are mistaken in your rant. The billion plus worth of assistance was given to support rebel forces for a new Libya, not the Gadhafi led old Libya.
Not to mention the weapons Moe-Mar had need to fall in the right hands.
Hmmm so Obama has basically finished what Reagan started from the 80's in taking down colonel Gaddafi? Anyone notice that? There really has been some surprising continuity across the last two presidencies. Bush cleaned up Iraq from his fathers time with Obama finishing that up and carrying on to other things. Wrap up North Korea and I'll truly be impressed.
You do realize that 9/11 could have been prevented if the Bush administration listened to the Clinton Administration warnings? And going into Iraq was wrong ... wrong timing ... wrong time. Bush Sr. left those people high and dry after the gulf war and they did not want us coming in and bombing their city. Where's the government now to take over from Saddam. Libya is no Iraq. There is no comparison. And it's lame to take away anything good Obama does and give credit only to the GOP and then blame him for all the wrongs in this country ... of which were scr****wed up before he took the job.
Is Fareed NOW an Obama enthusiast? That is a change. Does he vacillate from day to day? One day he is anti Obama and next day he is pro Obama.........maybe they play golf together and Obama gave him a handicap?
Yeah,or maybe he actually remembers how to be objective.Remember objectivity?It's that thing that vanishes when you put on the partisan glasses you're wearing now.
Poor little baby.
You've lost the capacity to celebrate a United States success.
You'd best start rethinking your priorities, Jim.
Where was Fareed when US had all the UN resolutions in place when we intervened in Afghanistan to get rid of Al-Queda and in Iraq to get rid of the constant thorn called Saddam. More than those 4 conditions laid in here were met. And US ensured that there was a successful government in place as well. Not sure that could happen in Libya. The opposition seems to be fragmented and US hasn't shown the leadership to bring them together. There would be nothing but chaos from here on, without an active plan to put together a new government. This is the biggest component that is missing from Obama's plan. Or did he even have a plan except get involved in an 'European' mess, which is what Libya is.
The notion that the USA "shared the burden" of NATO's Libya engagement is disingenuous as the USA covered 75% of that NATO mission yet was not in charge. In Afghanistan and IRAQ the USA was in charge and there is/was some shared burden although less than 25% of cost. In other words, the USA not being in charge and/or "in the lead" saved a diminutive percentage of total cost. Therefore, no big difference from prior policy.
No big difference?? How about 4000 dead american soldiers, sons, daughters, fathers & mothers? I'd say that's a pretty BIG difference.
For US the oil comes from Canada...
Far less silly than you, Mr. McLeod. By comparing the Libya intervention with the ones in Iraq and Afganiston (ones I'm going to guess you supported), he's effectively proven the point that satisfactory results can be achieved with greater cooperation and lesser spending. The USA fritters away a billion a day in Iraq/Afganistan, and for what?
We should have just sent them a shoddy bomb-casing full of used pinball machine parts!
That's from Back To The Future. Right?
Fareed, as usually, is fundamentally wrong. Libya's unrest was started by locals while Iraq and Afghanistan was an outside intervention. US was just simply doing little if anything waiting for Europe to help local uprising. Events on the ground had unfolded naturally and for now it will remain chaotic. The US played no role, had no plan and to call it successful policy is just ludicrous. Fareed, get a break, the more I read of you the more I see YOUR OWN interpretation of Middle East and it is far from reality. Please, stop confusing people with your nonsense.
im pretty sure it takes a plan to enforce a no-fly zone and decimate an entire country's air force in 3 days. and deciding not to take a certain course of action (and delegate responsibility to other nations) doesn't mean that no planning was involved. quite the opposite really
scat398 wrote: "The best thing America could have done was nothing, and to walk away from the chaos that is the middle east.":::::ONLY WHEN EVERYONE OWNS A CHEVY VOLT OR NISSAN LEAF. UNTIL THEN......
Givemeabreak, I've just had one of your neo-con friends tell me that corporate executives don't have to be patriotic, that they could screw their countrymen over with impunity, providing profits were to be made. I suppose that patriotism, or lack thereof, is just something that you and your neo-con gang can fling at people you hate. What is so patriotic about following your country blindly when it is wrong (and this foreign adventuring IS wrong)? And what is so unpatriotic about wanting to right your country when it is wrong? Why don't you just goose-step behind Hitler? He didn't think that dissenters were patriots either.
God, how I hate people who hate people just because their politics are different!
This is incredibly "facing" to the Republican party, who has nothing but destroy this country's reputation, killed 1000s of our own military troops, and put us in unfathomable debt. Not to mention, have zero experience in military strategy involving other countries.
Bush lied to Americans, told NATO to shove it (when not ONE country was in favor of us invading Iraq), then went into Iraq with zero proof of a 9/11 connection, and no strategy. Obama finished the bin Laden job, aligned with NATO (keeping our involvement at a minimum), and this genocidal dictator has been ousted in less than a year. Sorry, but cannot argue with success.
So, Impatient Ones, imagine what this cabinet can do, given as much time to FIX America as it took Dumbya to destroy it?
If you actually knew the FACTS, we seized Libyan assets in banks around the world and froze access to them. Now that the rebels have almost total control of Libya, the country starved for everything by Gadhafi the dictator needs money to rebuild and to build a new infrastructure. The money America is giving them is LIBYIAN MONEY FROZEN FROM ACCESS BY GHADFI BUT IS NOW BEING MADE AVAILABLE FOR CONTROLLED USE TO FUND THE BUILIDNG OF THEIR NEW NATION AND GOVERNMENT.
Don't be a typical Republican. Learn the FACTS before you make false accusations.
What the heck are you talking about? What you just mentioned is nothing new. We've been freezing assets fo countries for a long time. Please become more informed before you speak or you look ridiculous.
What you understoood is not what Mr. Zakaria said. Read again, knothead. As usual, Fareed makes more sense than most of our politicians and experts.
What aid money, moron ?
Nothing in the article about American aid money.
Cant you read ?
Is it just me or did he not mention aid once in this article? Might as well have scolded him for saying we should provide birth control for Ghana. At least read the article, dude.
If we stop giving aid to the oil companies, stop welfare to the richest 1-2% (in the form of tax breaks so they pay, at best, less than 20%), there would be plenty of resources to draw upon. This kind of aid is already taken into account every time a budget is put together. The money's there. And not sending aid now will probably cost us much more in the long term. That's not delusional, that's fact.
You cannot be serious, lol, wow!
this was not a humane mission by the u.s and nato.it is business you will get 100 billions for the one you invested with borrowed money or tax payers and the libyans are grateful and have no problem paying so it's a good return on your investment but morons like you don't get it jim
Absolutely delusional post like most he writes, but then, you are never sure what nation this guy is referencing aor want policy to help.......he's a snake
I will be supporting O'bama's re election in 2012. He is a thoughtful, intelligent, deliberate president who made a good decision regarding intervention in Libya, stood firm on the debt ceiling through all of the hype and drama in congress, is not afraid to tackle controversial issues like health insurance reform and made the decision to get Osama Bin Laden at grave political risk if the mission had failed. He is a stable force in an unstable time in our history and I believe most Americans recognize this.
Derrick, what came first in this country, business or government? Business. Business is the cornerstone of our nation. Ranting and raving about corporations dominating us when they provided most of our jobs seems a bit stupid. Unless you and your non-productive activist friends plan on generating jobs, I would suggest you hush your mouth. You really cannot complain when you do nothing to put people to work.
By the way, if you think is is bad, just look at socialist countries. Concentration camps, lower standard of living than here, lack of freedom of speech and expression....socialism is for those who want to be equal at the expense of being free.
If you had bothered to read the article you might have noticed the biggest difference between Bush's wars and Obama's, aside from the fact that zero American lives were lost in Libya: the price tag. Iraq and Afghanistan have averaged $1.8 billion A WEEK since 2003, according to the OMB, and they're still chugging away. At $1 billion total so far, Libya is the cheapest way to overthrow a dictator ever, from an American cost viewpoint.
This revolution bears a striking resemblance to the American Revolution of which we are so justifiably proud: a revolt by the common people fed up with living under an oppressive dictatorship, patriots who put their lives on the line, generously funded by France's Louis XVI from behind the scenes.
I share Fareed's hope that this represents a turn for the better in US foreign policy. Our two biggest failures, Vietnam and Iraq II, were unnecessary incursions into countries that hated us for invading them and destroying their nations under the pretext of defending them. Simply wanting to be a War President is a lousy excuse for so much wasted blood and treasure. If you read the international press, you'd see that Obama is being hailed as a statesman for avoiding Cowboy George's mistakes and letting the Libyan people, take full credit for their victory.
Not to mention that we don't even know who many of the rebels even are. We do know however that they are pushing for the country to be governed under Sharia law which is not good for anyone especially the women of Libya. But you wount here about that from Fareed.
Fantastic article Fareed. There's nothing wrong with those who felt we acted too little too late (as it almost was both of these things), but in the end, it is important to swallow your pride and admit this strategy worked extremely well. We'll have to see if the Libyans can figure out their new government.
Just curious Alex, why was having NATO or anyone involved in this revolution a good idea? Is it not more desirable to allow a nations people to liberate themselves than handing them "freedom".
I think its great that america got invovled to aid the people.
Americans tend to forget that without the French the american revolution would of failed
That's some sad revisionist history. The French played an insignificant role in Americas independence and spent most of their time trying to gain power over British interests.
But even with that said I find it sad that the same people who scream over Iraq or Afghanistan find it so appealing to assist here. Why can't we be more consistent and not get involved at all?
Where do you think Americans got the money, from the french, without money no weapons no food , no soldiers, yes they did get paid.
But you are probably the ones that believe that the founding fathers abolished slavery.
Despite the stereotype now, the french were very important in the American Revolution. Though they did provide some money, I always learned that the french were mostly important because they provided an decent navy. At the time, the Americans had an almost non-existent navy, and the British were able to blockade coastal cities, and only with the French's navy were we able to break them. Also the french provided at least ONE great commander, lafayette
I think your name scat says it all... so unaware of the role the French played in our liberation from Britain...... so unaware of the role the French played in the development of this country... you're an idiot.. Obama played a winning hand from start to finish.... too bad for the dixiefascists who hate him for whatever he does....
Please don't lump me in with such foolish people, I was simply pointing out that French involvement in our success during the revolutionary war was minimal at best and had little effect on the eventual outcome. Sadly many here have learned their history from movies.
Scat I'm afraid you are very about that. The French played a very important role in our independence. I think it is you that needs to brush up on your history. Biggy, it is comments like "dixiefacist" tha make you look like the ignorant one. Atlanta has some the countries leading universities and believe it or not is in the south. It is also one of the most diverse cities in the country. The sterotypical comments about the south make northerners look stupid.
scat, you're one of those contrarians, you always have to disagree, and you will never, ever admit when you are wrong. dollars to donuts your are a republican, yes?
You truly know nothing about our history Scat. You can debate how much we really needed the French army (though I believe they were significant), but one indisputable fact is that the French navy played a crucial role. Without them holding the Chesapeake, the key surrender at Yorktown would never have happened; Cornwallis would simply have escaped by sea, sailed back to New York with his troops, and the war would have gone on for years. Yorktown was the key to forcing the British to terms; the French navy was instrumental to Yorktown. Fact.
Scat, you appear to be looking at the American Revolution through the thin narrow tube of land combat on American soil. You overlook the fact that they most powerful nation on Earth in the late 1700's managed to deploy only a modest amount of its military forces to the Americas to prevent the loss of its colonies. Why do you suppose that was? It was because our alliance with France, the 2nd most powerful military force in Europe, meant the Brits couldn't afford to leave their front door unguarded while they went after the back door.
Bang on point, mate! Anything is worth to you what you pay for it. Freedom handed for free is valued accordingly by the recipients.
To scat398: You should study the American Revolution before making such a statement. The French were absolutely crucial to our defeat of the British during the revolution. From the role of the Comte de Grasse and the French Fleet when it prevented the British navy from saving their army at Yorktown to that fairly well-known figure Lafayette, we would not have won the war without them.
If the rest of your statements here are based as loosely on the facts as this one, they are only incidental to the conversation.
Well sltupid it's hard to liberate yourself when your leader has ordered his troops to shoot to kill all opposition to his Government. Did you forget that part or as normal when it comes to the Right you have selective amnesia.
That is a very rare event. In the case of the Americans winning independence from the British, it would not have happened without the direct intervention of France and toward the end, the Spanish going on the offensive on the high seas draining British resources and adjusting their focus. Anyone who thinks our own independence was won strictly by American patriots blood, sweat, and tears has a great misunderstanding of history.
Yes, much of the heavy lifting and political will needs to come from within, but often military aid and power is needed from the outside to overturn a tyrant.
Also, the U.S. experience a lot of infighting, often nastier than the fighting between patriots and red coats, during the war and after many today consider the war to have ended. So once again, that aspect, though longer lived in the Middle East, is not unique to the region.
Maybe by helping them , we gain a friend and cheaper oil for a while- that sounds like a good deal to me. Let's try to be hopeful.
"French played a minimal role AT BEST. Sadly many here have learned their history from movies", Everyone has already pointed out how idiotic that statement was. Just wanted to add I hate people like you. Calling other people names behind a keyboard while not knowing anything about the subject themselves. You are a waste of life
you mean like the French helped out the US in the Revolutionary War...I swear people should have to pass a test to post here.
The Obama administration was not forth coming about this "mission" from the beginning. we acted late but when we did act we took controll of the air space immediately so we could hold the British and French hands into the battle. Because we are NATO, Obama should have asked the Congress for permission to take him out in the beginning instead of claiming it was not a "War". How many innocent civilians and fighters were killed in the 6 months it took?
If Obama wins a second term it would not surprise me to see Mr. Zakaria in his cabinet or in the State dept.
>>many neoconservatives in Washington were extremely dismissive of the way President Obama was handling the intervention in Libya
Not terribly surprising - they're extremely dismissive of everything the President does.
Obama has opened a new door for U.S. foreign policy. He saw the bad finances and war-fatigue at home and persuaded the international community to support him.
Where exactly did he say that?
He said Dixiefascist...implying that everyone in the south (Dixie, implying south) is ultra-conservitive morons. I just get sick of the southerner comments that I see in these blogs.
Right there with ya, JT. The south doesn't have a lock on stupid. There are plenty of morons in the rest of the country. Like, for example, Alaska, where they actually elected Sarah Palin as their governor. Now THAT was dumb. And how about all the idiots here in CA who voted for the Governator? Silly rabbits all.
Truth hurts huh jttay? Of course there are some exceptions but the vast majority ARE dixiefacists.
Since when is an American Conservative a National Socialist (aka fascist)? Like it or not, that has been the direction of the current Democrat Party. Zakaria is failing to mention all the behind the scenes/interventionalist activities our military has been forced into by bureaucrats that have not worked out so well (you know all those policies of forcing America's will on other nations, supporting dictators in the name of stability). If this is such an Cheap/Easy policy, then why aren't we in Syria already ?? How about every other conflict going on in Africa right now ??? Put you money where you mouth is and advocate world rescue Zakaria! I also love how Obama sought the blessing from the UN, Arab/Muslim League, but never consulted and got approval from Congress (violation of the War Powers Act).
NCJoe – We're not in Syria because it didn't meet the 4 criterias that was described in the article. If we went into Syria, then we would've followed the old, traditional foreign policy. And just like Iraq, it would've been a mess that only we would own. And no, Congress didn't need to approve our involvement in Libya. We're not declaring war on Libya. We're not sending ground troops. We're not taking sides with any particular tribal group. Finally! We were smart. We set an achievable goal and we met it ... which was to keep Ghadafi from massacring his own people. We made it possible for the Libyan people to conduct a fair fight. We made sure there were other countries who could step in to take lead roles, and then we simply moved out of the way. No lost of precious American lives or limbs. What sort of government will the Libyan people create? Just like when the French helped America create their own country, they didn't dictate to us what we would become. We made our own. The Libyan people will make their own. Is there any guarantee that they will not be enemies to us? No, but if you don't help, then you definitely won't have any influence. Americans seem to have forgotten about Lockerbie and also all the financial funding that Ghadafy has given to other ruthless thugs in other African countries. He was funding chaos so that anti-American groups can operate in Africa.
i have to admit after all my regrets about voting for Obama over Hillary, i can find comfort in his ability to represent america on the international stage. We havent gone to war with Iran and we didnt hijack or ignore the arab spring. she would have been the better canidate to fight over domestic issues with the republicans but obama's need for everyone to be reasonable and like him makes him a good person to represent america to the world. we really should have named Obama as prime minister and clinton as president.
We should of made him part of Parliament you mean. Wait.
I'm not sure I want a Prime Minister running my country.
Agree 100% ! Obama got Osama and now gadahfi
I'll give the credit for Osama to Obama. But how can Obama be given credit for Gadhafi's fall (if he does). NATO will deserve the credit. The fact we halped out, does not make Obama or the US responsible for the outcome in Libya.
Actually, mikeh, it's very doubtful Britain or France would've done anything if Obama hadn't taken the lead in committing U.S. forces in a limited way. Moreover, there were key elements of the air attacks that the Brits and French lacked the capability of providing in any way whatsoever.
Actually you would need Hillary as the Prime MInister because they handle more of the domestic legislative issues.... if you want someone that actually represents the country as a whole at a global scale, that's your President
You do realize that Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and is heavily involved in everything that is going on right?
chuckles makes good points but Hillary disqualified herself in m y eyes when she supported the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq.
Nice having adults in the oval office vs. the oil lobby and halliburton
Idiots who have no idea what will happen, but cherish the immediate news.
Answer: GOP?
Quicker success than past US interventions, much lower cost, genuine teamwork with other nations in the free world–the people who pile hatred onto this success are driven by a need to paint Obama as a failure no matter what the facts. You can tell by the way they write in this thread: either they make up imaginary negative future outcomes that haven't happened ("empowering the europeans will only lead them to believe that they've taken the helm of the most powerful coalition on earth"), they blow hot air ("He got lucky on that one"), or they make up imaginary facts ("like we are more than broke and going to give Libya, an oil producing country, AID from money that is borrowed"). Folks, our country seems to be doing something right in this matter, in a part of the world where we have a history of making mistakes. Be proud of America.
Amen...I think I'll vote for this guy again.
Spoken like a true / reasonable American. Glad to be on your side!
One smart "Person". I so agree with you!
Indeed!
calling this a success already is a bad move, calling it an Obama success is a joke, calling invading this country justified is a joke, the guy writing this irresponsible article is clearly a liberal one mindset (Obamas re-election) loser. This move did nothing good for the U.S.A.. Just more involvment with the greatest hater of our country. Islam.
Totally agreeing with 'Person'.
'Trippin' is just tripping all over his own narrow bigotry thinking. He's spilling a lot of negativity all over the place.
We are blessed with a great leader and a great president. Those who can not at the very least celebrate this victory and be proud of our Commander in Chief are NOT patriots, but fools.
2 words for you:
Mission
Accomplished
Now if only congress would grow up and at the very least eat their peas and crow.
I enjoy it.
Get ready Europe, with Spain,France,Italy,and Greece all failing financially look for the next uprisings to take place in your house, not in your back yard. Anyone who thinks all these countries falling into anarchy at the same time is a good thing will be quickly running for their lives when it comes to your door.
Scat:
Aren't you the boy who cried wolf? There will be no anarchical uprising in France, Spain, Italy or Greece. If the people change their government they will do so the way they have always done. Your fear-mongering would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic. You have nothing to back up what you say either from precedent or current events. Show us the money, so to speak, and we may take you seriously.
Nothing pathetic about discussing what you believe will come next in politics and government. Asking me to produce the future when you can't either is a nonstarter. Perhaps you could discuss what you think will happen next in the middle east instead of name calling. You may not like what I believe is on the horizon so please offer your thoughts.
By the way my thoughts are based an economic theory of government stability in relation to debt to gdp ratios. Spain, Italy, and Greece are all currently beyond what historically allows a government to survive.
Wasn't France on fire not too long ago?
Joan, you criticize Scat for predicting chaos in the future for some european countries, while you predict definitely no rebelion in their future. You obviously have not been watching what's going on in England the past few weeks. The problem with liberals is you see everything threw rose colored glasses. "Wouldn't it be great if we all got along and everbody had everything they needed"? Yes it would be, but nothing in life is free, you have to work for it. We have to high of percentage of people sitting on their bum taking from the government, and not enough giving back. When the govenment goes broke from supporting these freeloaders, they revolt. That is what will happen in Eurpope and what will happen in the US if we don't wake up and face reality.
Are you studying at the Glenn Beck School of Economics?
All you have done is exhibit A MASSIVE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of Europe and European culture and differences.
This is absurd analysis. The outcome in all the middle east could easily be a disaster. Any high fives before we see how theses countries will be ruled are highly premature.
I find the administration approach in Libya to be consistent with a wide open risk of disaster in all the spring awakening venues.
This praise is way too prematire and naive.
True, we should be instead, sabotaging efforts and trying to install our own puppets as that's worked wonders in the past.
Or, perhaps stood by and did nothing so you could have then said "Hey, look, we only care about "X" countries".
Fact is, you and your ilk are never happy.
Sabotage? Have you heard of Egypt? Mubarak was the greatest friend the US and Israel had in he middle east. Obama backed an uprising against him, giving terrorists control over Egypt. Rockets are now being fired across the border from Egypt to Israel. I believe it was President Obama who said it's not fair nor accurate to say that terrorists will move in if we move Mubarak out. Good job Mr President. Is that another foreign policy win for Obama in your mind?
How come anyone that attacks Israel is automatically a terrorist? Besides the fact that Israel is considered the "chosen people" of a fictional deity that is worshipped by otherwise rational people, they haven't done anything except invade and occupy land that doesn't belong to them. Must be nice to be "chosen".
Only problem with you theory is we've done all that before. We've never been smart enough to back the people. Shaw of Iran...Pinochet...Saddam...and all those other dictators in the past. How disingenuous to dismiss such an achievement and the supportive role that the US displayed and Zacharia most eloquently described. OMG...just to think about any other model so afflicted with religion and politics and playing to one's base. Foreign policy that makes sense for a change.
We have a checkered past when it comes to installing people we think will be favorable to the US. Of course we could get a democratically-elected crazy person who is anti-USA, but I fail to see how that is worse than a country being ruled with an iron fist by a tyrannical crazy person who is anti-USA. At the very least, a democracy has a self-preservation instinct. When you let the pawns vote, they are less likely to elect chess players who believe in the merits of sacrificing pawns.
There is a wait and see here, no one understands the middle east opportunity to make a free and fair for all.
If they fail, the west will fail them, heed this warning I PROMISE dead muslims, evil can come and bite you back.
There maybe a god in heaven, but there might be a super power that acts like the next best thing to a god.
Lightning bolt can stirke in the same place twice if your not polite to others.
I love the criticism from posters. Let's see; Do I believe an anonymous person who, at best, is guessing OR a noted and respected author and commentator who makes his livelyhood studying this very kind situation AND happens to be from the Middle East? If you chose the former, you are the former.
fareed zakaria is a person of Indian origin and not the middle east
My mistake.
No. Your silliness, for not actually getting your facts right before criticizing Fareed Zakaria. By adoption, extended residence and great enthusiasm for his country, Fareed is as American as any other and i dare say even more so than some. Check your history and see the pattern ok?
You should listen to what he says because with his skill, expertise and insight into these matters it helps you as an American become more informed to make meaningful decisions at some ballot box you probably aren't truly qualify to stand at. And yes he is of East Indian origin. Obama's handling of Libya draws a template going forward for future interventions. Give the man the Kudos he deserves ok? The extreme politicking has become a boring cliche.
A ballot box you probably aren't truly qualified to stand at? Wow! And here I thought being an American Citizen was all the qualification needed to be at the ballot box or even on the ballot. How stupid of me to think people living in a free society can make up their own mind, regardless of what the talking heads are saying. Maybe you want to go back to Jim Crow with poll taxes, literacy and comprehension tests.
Actually, I interpreted it different. My thought was he was referencing felons. The one I know is big on the GOP, Beck and Rush supporter, and not qualified to vote and yet is all over the discussion boards yapping up a storm.
1/10 of 1% cost of previous interventions. Good job Obama... let's see what the end game looks like first before declaring 'Mission Accomplished'.
Jeez Hankers. Quit being so even-handed. You're gonna confuse people.
He got lucky on that one.
anything else you wanna add while my mouth is open and ready to yawn at your comments???? lol....i bet Osama was good o'le luck too aint it??? lmao – get a life, loser!!
The loser at the end of you statement negates anything you thought you were saying. Politics brings out the best in people huh Steve?
To quote a motivational poster from my high-school gym: "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity."
I have my disagreements with Obama when it comes to domestic policy, but the guy is a champ on foreign policy. Drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, a successful Libyan mission (note: this is different than a successful Libya, which is up to the Libyans to make happen), and of course, the all-important killing of Osama. The economy stinks, but I don't think you can do much better on the FP side of things than he is doing. His demeanor isn't any good for ramming home legislation, but it's great for leading within the community of nations.
A foreign policy champ? I wonder what actually happened while getting Osama that would encourage the military leadership to knowingly send in the same team that "killed" Osama to certain death... They got rid of that body pretty quick wouldn't you say?
mikeh – You should read up on that transport chopper crash... although there were 20-something Seal Team 6 members killed, none of them were involved in the Osama raid. It was posted in several outlets. Though it would have made for a fun conspiracy
If by 'lucky' you mean allowing events in the Libyan nation to play out the way the Libyan's can claim was by their own sweat and blood (mostly) than yes, it was very lucky. Very lucky that the Libyan people had the stomach to fight for what was theirs and depose this petty dictator, and reclaim their country. And they did it by uniting various tribes, something neither the Iraqis or Afghans have managed to do.
So again, very lucky. And very, very correct.
So I guess it is lucky for Obama that Hillary dragged him by his big floppy ears to get involved in the Libyan uprising. Why aren't any of you dems talking about that? Is that another one of those inconvenient truths?
The Obama Doctrine is more intelligent, less bumbling, more sensible, less arrogant, more inclusive, and less expensive in every measurable way than the Bush Doctrine.
So obviously, the Tea-Tardlicans hate it.
Not because they wouldn't have done it if they had thought it up, but because he thought of it and they were too busy bombasting to think.
Agreed. Lack of reason responds to the spear, not the argument.
you can debate whether what Obama did is right or wrong, but when you compare him with Bush even his wrongs seem to be right.
Interesting that GWB made it to a second term and Obama will go down as a one term failed president like Carter. His wrongs seem right, huh? The number of people who agree with you is shrinking by the minute.
Obama 2012. Clinton 2016 & 2020....
How simplistic! They still hate us over there thanks to our blind support for Israel.
Sure. Or more reasonably, the fact the West has used the area as a playground since early imperialism, both World Wars, the Cold War and forward.
They hate us because we and our allies have made it clear historically we see it as something we lease.
Bingo
Wow! Another anti-zionist anti-semetic... Maybe you should rethink that 'tard statement that only a neo-nazi would make and perhaps think a little more on the lines of what lysander said (below).
Probably couldn't even find Israel on a map
*above
It was nearly too little too late precisely of the consensus-building required to a) find the locals, b) get the Arab league involved, c) get Europe to commit to spending real euros, and so on. These things take time. The humanitarian crisis built to near disaster, but the world acted. That's what the Neo's don't get. When US acts unilaterally, all we get is all of the expense, all of the blame and no credit.
The cost will be to high empowering the europeans will only lead them to believe that they've taken the helm of the most powerful coalition on earth. To many times America has sacrificed just to be hated and judged for it, like those other countries even have the capacity to de what we long ago took for granted. My point is the united states has to remember who we are this country is the pinnacle of a modern society let us not forget that!!!
Who cares if the Europeans think they are in charge? If a Frenchman or a Brit thinks his country deserves the credit, it doesn't change anything. We should want what is best for us, and paying 1/1000th of the expected cost of doing things the "old way" while getting a result that is at least as good is much, MUCH better for our country. We accomplished as much in Libya in the last month or so as we accomplished in a decade of war in Iraq or Afghanistan except in Libya we did it for pennies on the dollar, very quickly, with no US casualties, and in a way that leaves a lot of positive international feelings towards the US that could lead to a more cooperative international community in the future.
In all 3 countries, to varying degrees, we are talking about a nation ousting its nefarious rulers and looking ahead to a future with serious internal political issues and an uncertain future, but a chance for positive changes. None are guaranteed successes, but they are generally better places than when we were deciding what to do. Was Iraq or Afghanistan worth it for a trillion dollars? Doubtful, but maybe. Libya for a billion? That's a bargain.
Well said Steve!
RON PAUL 2012! THE ONLY INTELLIGENT CHOICE WE HAVE!!
YES! YES! Wait, who is that?
I agree! The only one who will end the wars and bring the troops home! The only candidate who receives more support from the military than any other 2012 presidential candidate. The only candidate to push for an audit and end to the private Federal Reserve banking cartel. A candidate who is not bought and paid for by the monied special interests and is in a statistical dead heat tie with Obama. Veterans for Ron Paul 2012! The r3VOLution continues!
http://whathasronpauldone.com/
Ron Paul really is the best Republican option for president. A more isolated approach to foreign policy is really important with the pending economic problems. Hopefully the Republicans can rally around Paul and conservative Democrats will appreciate his sound fiscal policy.
Strongly agree with you bro!
Perhaps...but has no chance what-so-ever of getting elected. Pity...
Because of people like you saying he has no chance....
One of these days, I'll get your attention Fareed:
If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is - the same one that did it all before - Cannabis Hemp... Marijuana! Jack Herer, back cover of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. When first published in 1985, he offered $30,000 to anyone who could prove his facts to be in error. Now the offer is $100,000 – and it has never been collected!
What a joke, the Arab League? Half of those countries crushed their own revolutions. This is all about Oil,. Libya has vast reserves and is of the particular variety coveted by the West. Of course NATO supported this, Libyan Oil goes straight to them. Libya is not exactly Afghanistan either, is this the new dawn of U.S Foreign Policy? Attacking small countries with Overwhelming U.S/European/Rebel Military power? lol
The question is not not but in a few months this article is very short sighted and as we have learned things can turn not in favor of the US
Ok...overall, no denying this was a success, but this intervention did not follow typical U.S. led operations because it wasn't U.S. led.. Poor Sarkozy, he worked his tail off for nothing. How can the U.S. play a "supporting role", yet this operation is U.S. led? Logic 101 please???
Second, not right to lump all those who called for quick, strong action neo-cons.
Looking into the future, does the emergence of independent (non-U.S. backed) regimes necessitate a more balanced U.S. policy towards Israel? And does peace in the Middle East actually become more or less likely as the status-quo is not sustainable
Mr. Zakaria has finally established what the rest of the world has known for a very long time; USA is hell bent upon interventions particularly in the oil rich nations and that now it has finally developed a low cost operational model for it. Congratulations are in order if one is of the US nationality but otherwise its a horrific concept. The world has now moved into that phase where one nation openly claims to "free" the others without naming the fringe benefits attached to this forced freedom. A warning from the Libyan rebels that China may lose its oil interests in the newly "liberated" country is an indication of the things to come with the focus of oil sale now unconditionally shifting towards the US and Europe.
Moazzam is of course correct. Imagine if instead we spent the war money on developing alternative energy sources and energy conservation. We know Energy Technology could be the new Information Technology driving economic development and innovation. If we don't lead and benefit, others will. Exception: We have to respond to or prevent enemy attacks, such as Al Qaeda did from Afghanistan (not from Iraq; Bush lied). Egypt was a better model: build relationships and commerce, provide educational opportunities, but encourage democratic movements, even if the autocrat participated in the relationships and commerce. Hope we don't screw it up.
i feel like fareed writes this same article every week
The US doesnt have foreign policy, we just do Isreals bidding. Its all BS. Obama has two choices...do whats right and DIE, or do what he is told and live. All presidents are puppets, and they dont play the game they are assassinated. TRUTH
I have to wonder how different your country would be if JFK had been allowed to serve two terms. I really think Bobby would have followed John with two terms as well. Imagine...
Fareed, I would call a new era in US foreign Policy when it is based on principles and our support for democracy applies to Saudi Arabia and the other monarchies and dictators alike. You are trying real hard to be Secy Sate aren't you?
Interesting article! Just two remarks. First; I suggest to make a stricter difference between local and regional matters. Under 2) I would say it is a regional recognized legitimacy, because the Arab League is for certain a regional organization. Secondly a more fundamental remark. By the fact that the 'old model of American leadership' didn't produce any glory anymore, there is a need for a radical change in model, besides the financial reasons. Rightly or wrongly, but the global acceptability of the old model has been extremely reduced, to put it mildly
Fareed, I thought you were against intervention in Libya? Why the sudden change of heart? Saudi Arabia and Bahrain next? Or is it ok for Sunni monarchies to oppress their citizens while Shia leaning states and populations are fair game? The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven Abu Zakaria.
If it's true, link an example please
what has been accomplished in the Arab spring, except a lot of murdering?
When we threw a friend Mubarek to the dogs, does that make people trust us more?
We have brought down (it looks like) Colonel Gadaffi, yet we ignore more dangerous Iran
We talk human rights but do not intervene in Syria>
Zakaria what is it you say?
what has been accomplished in the Arab spring, except a lot of murdering? Freedom, same thing the U.S. Revolution achieved.
When we threw a friend Mubarek to the dogs, does that make people trust us more? What kind of friends were we keeping? I don't think we had a choice. We didn't call the dogs.
We have brought down (it looks like) Colonel Gadaffi, yet we ignore more dangerous Iran- Agree we should have encouraged the Green revolution.
We talk human rights but do not intervene in Syria> No oil, bigger army.
Zakaria what is it you say?
The Egyptian people threw Mubarak to the dogs, not US. Mubarak was a gone case anyway and we did intervene, that is why the Egyptian military is running the country behind the scenes and the people's revoution was stolen. We have more than one friend there.
> It cost the U.S. about $1 billion. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan collectively cost the U.S. $1.3 trillion. In other words, success in Libya could be achieved at less than one-tenth of one percent of the cost of the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This statement is slightly inaccurate. It's not just less than one-tenth the cost, but actually one-THOUSANDTH the cost. You could fund 1,000 libya-like interventions and not even match the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan.
There is also the human cost as well. No American soldier has lost his/her life during the Libyan civil war, and that has got to count for something. How many have been lost in Iraq/Afghanistan?
More crap from this self-anointed know-it-all .. Fareed Zakaria is another form of affirmative action plumbing waste material. Total anatomical feature whose thinking is borne of the Asian continental subculture given an education here in the USA. Far left stupidity dipped in the same sauce as Prez Obozo.
It is too early to tell how things will turn out in Libya. But it is also too early to tell how things will turn out in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, heck, as Zhou Enlai reportedly said, when asked by Nixon about his feelings on the French Revolution, "too soon to tell." One never knows,when a revolutionary period starts, how things will turn out and over what time frame. What is clear is that Obama chose a very different model for trying to influence the course of history than did his predecessor, George W. Bush. What is also clear is that Obama knows that, contrary to the "Mission Accomplished" bragadocio of George W. Bush, that it is far too early to declare "Mission Acomplished" or to decide that everything has turned out the way we want it to have. Is it possible that Islamist fundamentalists will sieze power in Libya? Absolutely. But was it also clear that a local uprising against a man responsible for reprehensible terrorist attacks against the US and the West (can you spell Lockerbie?) was in the offing? Also, absolutely.
The question becomes one of "do you do nothing and run the risk of ensuring the enduring enmity of those who might come after (as differentiated from the enduring enmity of the one who came before?)?" Or do you do the mininimalist thing that might have the benefit of getting rid of the despotic murdering terrorism sponsor already in place and possibly earn some degree of friendship with those who might come after?
It seems to me that Obama made the right calculation, with inescapably incomplete and imperfect information, and chose the most responsible course of action, with aspects as reported by FZ. That goes whether or not the coming power structure in Libya turns out to be better than or even worse than what Libya and the world have endured for the past several decades. If it is a bad outcome, at least it will have been purchased with far less loss of American lives and treasure than the bad outcomes George Bush guaranteed for us, no matter what his successor might have done, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Presidents are frequently faced with "making the best of a bad situation" decisions. And sometimes the best that can be achieved out of a bad situation is an alternative bad situation. But an alternative bad situation purchased at the cost of $1B and no American military deaths is far preferable than a bad situation made worse at the cost of $2 or $3 TRILLION and in excess of 6K American deaths. This is even more true when the bargain bad situation is in a vital US national interest backwater like Libya rather than in a critical US national interest such as the Iran/Iraq balance and the Af/Pak theatre.
The critics either don't understand the comparative situations in Libya vs. Iraq and Afghanistan or, in the alternative, do understand the differences and are just so interested in scoring cheap and misleading points that they just don't give a damn.
Bob, it's the latter. It's all about scoring cheap political points.
You have put the real issues in a nutshell, well said, but you again (like most Americans) take positions on international issues thru the prism of US self interests. What about the interests of the Libyan people.?
Your strategic tangential thinking that favors western viewpoints (though well intentioned), without any clear understanding of the historical, cultural and religious idiosyncrasies of that particular region is what prolongs the schisms between the Middle East and the US leading to unending wars, like in Israel/Palestine.
I like most of the posters here completely agree with the fact that calling it a success without fully seeing how things will play out is moronic. I do not agree with the way it was handled though because I believe that full early on support could have made the revolution smoother as well as quick. It would also show that America does not pick and choose the countries that it supports in fights for democracy. Foreign policy seems to be all over the map and this operation was inconsistent with previous operations of foreign affairs. The only plus side is it was cheaper which is great considering we are continuously digging ourselves into further debt, but that is a completely separate soapbox!
"Success of Libya Operation"??? Fareed, you learned absolutely nothing from Iraq. The battle in Libya is just beginning.
You fail to mention that any success gleaned from this action on our part was inherited from foreign policy in place when President Obama took office.
A huge reason the cost cannot be compared to the the Iraq & Afghanistan wars on terror is "no troops on the ground." However, the cost for our Libya decision will not be truly known until it is clear who will govern post Gadafi and who will pay for rebuilding 20,000 NATO sorties worth of damaged infrastructure.
Great article. It has to be said that President Obama played our involvement in Libya almost perfectly.
As Mr. Zakaria points out, Democracy has to come from within. Instead of blundering our nation into 2 wars based on poor intelligence and worse advice, Obama supported the Libyan people's own push for freedom.
Trillions have already been flushed down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, compared to a relatively measly billion spent on Libya.
Moreover, not a single American life was lost, which is truly priceless.
I hope neoconservatives are taking notes.
Censorship? Why can't I post a rebuttal to this disingenuous propaganda piece?
lol There's no conspiracy. Just don't curse, genius.
Test
Lol, now that's priceless Tom!
Try to post the word Consti2tion.
Obama's the second-rate glory hound here. He didn't have the balls to intervene, so he let this drag on and on – destroying the world economy and costing hundreds of lives needlessly. And then when it's all but over, he calls for Qaddafi to step down. That's the definition of Liberal hypocrisy – and why no one takes his administration seriously.
Well said.
Libya has not done in the world economy. In the grand scheme of things, it's barely caused a ripple in the water. Libya is a relatively minor oil producer, and there's been capacity in other places to make up a shortfall. What's caused so many problems for the world economy is financial shenanigans in the City and on Wall Street (and in the Greek cabinet).
This is a lack of knowledge of history. Anyone ever heard of Vietnam? Just because it worked this time does not make it any better or worse then it was when we got involved. And we will see if it creates more or less stability in an already very insecure region.
This guy is an idiot. Maybe there was an argument for just being "one of the guys" in the coalition but, to choose a bit part and then take the bows when the plans of those who led are successful is dishonest. In fact, it's Democrat.
Mr. Zacharia can you please get a few things right. First off, the Arab Spring is a CIA plan hatched in 2003 under then Pres. Bush. It was conceived after it was evident the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions were a failure. Iran has always been the end game target. When Obama fired the tomahawk missiles at libya on Mar 20,2011, we had two amphibious ships with 800 marines ready to go ashore. On Mar 22, 2011 I announced on CSPAN that Obama had already spent over 1 billion dollars (8,446,000 dollars X 124 missiles + 2 b2 bombers). This forced Obama to address the cost and say no boots on the ground. Obama only pulled the trigger on Bush's idiotic CIA plan. The real fallout is yet to come. Please sell your propaganda somewhere else.
Are you really that gullible?
Wow, do you really believe that? That seems very farfetched. Did the CIA plan to have a fruit seller set himself on fire in Tunisia in the spring of 2011 to inspire persons throughout the Middle East to protest against poor job prosects and political repression? Does that mean too that President Bush planned the economic collapse of 2008 in order to push populations throughout the Middle East into desperation? If so then President Bush truly was a visionary.
Thank you, Mr Zakaria, for demonstrating that the American system is utter rotten garbage. Your absurd raving about American foreign policy concerning far away problems that are totally unimportant is nonsense. Whether it's a billion dollars or a trillion, it would be much better spent on cancer research. You and that Christiane Amanpour should be locked up in a lunatic asylum.
If cancer research could rid us of you, it would me money well-spent indeed.
Isn't it interesting that Obama has been much more successful in achieving U.S. foreign policy goals than his predecessor? Osama, check. Gadhafi, check. Could it be that a thoughtful, multilateral approach to dealing with dictators is more effective than the blustering, go-it-alone cowboy approach preferred by most Republicans?
Ha well that seems to be the case. But to be fair, our military and our politicians have had ample time and opportunities to practice and hone their strategies.
Ha! Are you kidding Scott? What's more "go it alone" than violating the consti2tion and not even asking congress? We have yet to see the end of this War and the other 4 we are currently involved in.
That's because we didn't declare war on Libya genius. Approval from Congress is not needed for this type of action.
JT You have got to be kidding me. Just because he didn't declare it doesn't mean he doesn't need authorization. Look up the War Powers Res. and Article I section 8 of the U.S. consti2tion. The only way the President is authorized to do this aside from those 2 laws is if we are under direct attack or threat of an imminent act of war by said sovereign nation. Wow, Americans' understanding of basic civics these days is astounding!
Fareed, who should be the force for peace and liberty in the world if not the US? CNN maybe? And you actually think EU countries are now "more likely to be involved in the difficult process of reconstruction". With whose money?
We'll still be a global force for peace and liberty but I don't think we should have to go it alone. Why shouldn't the other free nations share the burden? We are leaders. It is in our American nature. But being a leader doesn't mean that we have to be a lone wolf. We might be able to achieve a lot more if we work as part of team. And if we can be more effective by sharing the burdens of leadership then it would be stupid not to do it.
Sharing leadership will lead to sharing the bail-out. We had some shared assistance in Iraq but US stayed, the others left. The surge worked and Iraq will be a better place than Libya in the long run. The bail-out of Libya will happen and US will share its lack of responsibility with all the rest.....We are leaving a void that only the USA ever could fill....its not lone wolf....its the only wolf. wish we didnt have to do it either...and we shouldnt have mixed in the Libya deal...Obama acted alone without congressional support....hmmm seems that Bush did have that....thats odd
Interesting posts. All the negative people think of all the negative scenarios that might result and all the positive people have a more positive take on events. I would rather be a cautious, positive person. Who knows...maybe a blossoming Middle East will halt the exodus of those people to Europe and the west. I'm not prejudice but I think that would be a good thing. At this particular period in history I think that influx is too much right now and resulting in some social instability.
Hello? Why aren't any of my posts that are critical of this story getting through? Tried like 7 times with different wording every time.
Neo-Conservatism is an absolute disaster. It is the polar opposite of how our foreign policy was originally intended to work. It is also an idea that should disgust any true Republican. It is an ideology that has been subverted by Globalist Republicans, but in truth, really an idea that truly belongs to the Left. Free Trade is great, but all around Globalism like the kind George Bush, Barack Obama, and Fareed Zakaria argue for, the kind that lead to the E.U. and will, if unchecked, eventually lead to a Euro-style Socialist North American Union is absolutely the wrong direction for this country. It is a good part due to my dislike for Globalism and the Neo-Conservatism that has hijacked the Republican Party that I truly hope Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination in 2012 and is living in the White House come January, 2013.
Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he only has two chances....slim and none. Wait....make that none and less than none.
Your name is fitting.
I agree with you Alex! Especially the part about Ron Paul.
Well said alex...many true Republicans have become frustrated with neo-cons that have taken over our party.
Don't you mean come in late, take a few casualties and then forever claim victory?
"America is too proud to fight"
To those who say we should have not gotten involved, what would you have said when Gadhafi massacred the residents of Benghazi, as he made it clear he was going to do? And yes, the outcome of this revolution is yet to be seen, but at least now the Libyans have a chance to build a civil society, something Gadhafi has denied them for 42 years.
Absolutely. A chance at a civil society is worth everything.
Wow that's it the word Consti2tion is banned...lol! You have got to be kidding me.
Our foreign policy is changing because we no longer have the influence, money or power to go it alone.
I didn't curse. I was just trying to point out that first Zakaria has an article about getting rid of the consti2tion, then an article about changing our system of government to a parliamentary system with a prime minister, and now he is advocating unprovoked war outside of the consti2tion. Obama broke the law by waging this war in Libya, and it aint over yet. He violated the War Powers Resolution and Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Consti2tion. Obama should be impeached for this act. If we don't follow the rule of law as outlined in our own consti2tion then we stand for nothing!
Fareed just wishes that Obama would dip his Tea Bag....
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State. United States of America. Not mentioned one time in authors article. Author just wants to be in the Obama loop, thats all. One of the boys.
There is a huge difference between the afghanistan/iraque war and the lybian one, and that is the presence of El-queda in the former, and the probable need to divert attention from the later. Diversion for another front, is only a diversion, and one probably gave the iranians pause, to think they were exposed on two fronts. There is no doubt, that Iran is actively engaged in funding terrorism in the world, and this is why, syria being iran's colaborator is next. This way, Iran's ambitions will be twharted
It is much better if dumb, ignorant people like you stay out of foreign policy arguments, Your knowledge is so skewed that you do more harm than good.
There will always be critics that will say.."so Libya is free ..so what?..what is in it for us?..We spent money and resources, what is in it for me?..Is it going to get me a job?. Sometimes you need friends in places like Libya. We gained one more friend..one less enemy. Karma my friend..karma.
To happy moderate. It's easy to believe the CIA engineered the Arab Spring since they admitted doing it via twitter and face book. If you read all of your articles with an unbiased moderate view, you will see the difference between fact and propaganda. PS I checked the cost of a tomahawk missile the day before I announced the cost. At the end of the day, Obama has lied about almost everything.
Obama's strategy is funding wars that others countries will fight. It's more obvious than you might think.
All I can say is the word Consti2tion is banned on this site...lol! Speaks volumes. Ron Paul 2012! Have a goodnight folks!
The US played a pivotal role in bringing democracy to Lybia and help people overthrow a dectator who killed many Americans. Obama did that without losing a single American life. This is what I call a kick ass political and military success.
How can anyone be happy about this? The UN has once again broken its own charter of not interfering in civil disputes of individual nations who is not endangering others. Where is the left that screamed about the Bush doctrine? Obama has violated the wars power act. Where is Leslie Cagan and her band of Castro lovers? Obama is a hypocrite. He criticized Bush about these wars and goes out and topples a tin-pot dictator then will install the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law. The global elites use the UN's Human Rights Watch has a way to bring real or trumped up charges against regimes they wish to overthow so they can pilfer the resources of that nation. Does anybody not get it? These elites are criminals who are playing the US voters as the complete and utter failure that they are. Wake people before you and your country is gone.
To
Mr. Qaddafi and sons:
What part of the words 'GET OUT' don't you understand???.
I agree with the article, as well as the US financial and human cost. What some don't seem to understand is the US has $300bil of they Lybian peoples money. Between that nice little nest egg and their oil producing capabilities, I think the Lybian people will be able to financially support their rebuilding efforts.
Obama Got Osama and Gadahfi. He is a hero.
Bush got Saddam and the Taliban. He is evil
Double standard? I think so.
P.S. Bush relegated Osama to an old mad relegated to watching Direct TV in a house somewhere in Pakistan. He was worthless when he took that bullet.
Keep on drinking your Kool Aid you biased liberal.
Okay, so that was directed at an entirely different post. My bad.
Keep drinking whatever made you reply to the wrong article. BTW, Obama got Osama and Ghadafi without loss of life and made Americans look good! Bush on the other hand....
Great article. I'm sure Republicans disagree with it, but then again they disagree with everything, especially if it doesn't bash Obama.
Bush represented an America that considers itself the worlds police and we get to tell everybody else what to do with no questions allowed. I didn't like that representation. He lied and fabricated evidence in order to invade and kill 100,000+ for oil and military and oil contracts for his friends at the expense of American lives and $$. He blew off a UN vote of No.
Obama has been representing an America that tries to be partners with the rest of the world. I like that representation.
He partnered with Europe, Arab League, UN and NATO as a team as it was intended to be.
Republicans bashed Obama for not taking action. Then he did and they bashed him for taking action and called it illegal. They called it Obama's war. I tried to tell them it was a US/Europe/Arab League/UN/NATO operation, but they wouldn't hear it because it was all Obama's doing. Now there is success and now they say if he would have acted sooner when they told him to it would have worked out better and also they say Obama didn't have anything to do with it anyway because it was a NATO thing.
PFFT!
Correct, and when we bash Bush for plundering and stealing from the economy, Republicans start WHINING like cry babies that they are.
The real threats to a great country like America are not external, its greedy republicans bent on taking the country down the road to economic disaster and then blaming Obama for NOT fixing the untold catastrophic mess that republicans put the brainwashed timid American public through.
Nodack,
First, Mr. Bush did not kill 100,000+ people in Iraq, the insurgents did. Mr. Bush had all the legal and moral authority to invade Iraq under previous UN security authorizations and under US congressional approval as the US (and UN) had been in a defacto state of war with Iraq since 1991. Further, Mr. Bush did not go it along even in Iraq. Big deal, the French did not join the coalition but it was a legitimate International coalition.
Second, president Obama's success in getting Osama bin Laden rests on years of hard work and many people going back into the Bush administration. Sure, Mr. Obama gets some credit for finally getting OBL, as any sitting president would, but its' just not th ecase that somehow all the hard work trying to get OBL for the last ten years counts for nothing (as it seems to in the liberal mindset). Mr. Obama did not personally kill OBL.
Third, disceptive claims aside, Mr. Obama is continuiing the policies of Mr. Bush behind the scenes in almost every way
because they were and are teh right thing to do. Mr. Bush was more honest about it.
Mr. Obama needs to start acting like the president of the United States, not the president of the World who apologizes for the US and caters to third world opinion.
Canada and Mexico, America's closest friends did not join the coalition, that speaks volumes.
You Bush apologists have no idea how much destruction was wrought by Bush/Cheney and their greedy cronies. They bilked the US treasury of trillions, destroyed America's standing in the world, decimated the American middle class and made the economic future bleak for a whole generation of Americans. Stupid and sick.
what if a coalition force intervened in 68 in chicago? or at kent state? or if the zimmerman telegraph had worked? etc.
I agree with the article, as well as the US financial and human cost. What some don't seem to understand is the US has $300bil of the Lybian peoples money. Between that nice little nest egg and their oil producing capabilities, I think the Lybian people will be able to financially support their rebuilding efforts.
Libya doesn't have a democracy. It has the start of REAL civil war. We lost Egypt as an ally, We can't do anything with Syria. We won't do anything with Bahrain (It is home to the US 5th Fleet). Yemen is a complete mess. This makes the CIA'S "Iran/Contra scandal" and the ATF'S "Fast and Furious Mess" look like childs play. The CIA and Obama have had their Arab Spring. Can we have our American Fall. As in "The Fall Of Obama".
This is an insane comparison, I cannot believe he (Fareed) would write this. It just goes to show Fareed is no better than Sean Hannity. Independent thinking is no longer possible.
I hope you are right Zakaria. We've handled so many other interventions in an extremely short sighted way, such as Hungary, Cuba, Panama, Iran, and many others (did I mention Iraq and Afghanistan?).
It would be refreshing if the US started planning ahead based on a consideration of the probable outcome of their foreign policy decisions, as opposed to just doing whatever the current President felt like doing on that day.
"The United States is not going to have the kind of defense budget nor the national will to engage in a series of major military operations in countries that are, frankly, not vital to our national interests.".........................................
Translation: We will only invade countries that have oil. Even Zakaria admits this – in his own devious way.
What the heck?
@macthebear
I think you did an EXCELLENT job of defining who the idiot is. You'll see him the next time you look in the mirror.
I guess we now know how to handle Syria,Venezuela,India,Pakistan, China and finally the US. Thanks for your insight Mr Zacharia.
Every single time I put a well thought out, intelligent response and include the words b-r-a-i-n-w-a-s-h or b-r-a-i-n-w-a-s-h-i-n-g, CNN blocks it. EVERY TIME. The media is out to b-r-a-i-n-w-a-s-h you people. Beware of thoughtless war. It kills people. Good Day.
You know, if your "well thought-out response" has the word b-r-a-i-n-w-a-s-h-i-n-g in it, it was probably less well thought out than you thought.
But this new era of foreign policy doesn't keep the industrial military complex well lubed with tax payer dollars.
F A I L!
Dick Cheney
Zakaria is claiming an Obama victory for something where the president basically just lucked out. And it's far too early to assume this won't have an Egypt-like eventual outcome.
The lesson here may be: Be careful what you wish for. Democracies have a knee jerk mentality about revolution which assumes that revolt always leads to something better. There was time when America supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We won, right? Wrong – The mujahideen morphed into the Taliban and we all know how that turned out.
Maybe the story in Libya will have happy ending, but don't count on it. We do not know what these rebels represent or what they will do once in power.
"Back in March, many neoconservatives in Washington were extremely dismissive of the way President Obama was handling the intervention in Libya." Fareed, I recommend that you go back and review your own comments at that time about Obama's performance. You were saying these very same things. "Too little, too late." An incredibly short and distorted memory that you have. The real question is not whether the most powerful military machine on earth can undermine and disable a two-bit military power, but we should ask the question: is that our right and responsibility? Obama's rationalization that getting rid of a bad dictator guy in Libya is sufficient justification is exactly Bush's revisionist rationalization for getting rid of a bad dictator in Iraq. In this case, Obama = Bush.
@Rick
You may have more luck arguing your point if you use the proper terminology. What is happening in Lybia is a revolt, not a civil war.
While you're at it, TxTy, care to explain the difference between revolt and civil war?
Today, the GOP Wall has fallen.
Conservatives of the world: you suck and are sore losers. Brainy use of force, something a grade C President of the GOP kind could/would not be able to even conceive, let alone implement, is the final proof, modern democrats have the upper-hand in military and foreign policy understanding and control. Additionally, they are a lot better in diplomacy and this success together with the killing of Bin Laden, is the final seal on the future of the US Presidency for a better America and a better world, without conservative idiots.
Today, the GOP Wall has fallen.
new tone
The Obama Doctrine.
Oh, did I mention 40,000 people dead in Mexico in four years. Guess who is supplying the guns, the United States own ATF via the "Fast and Furious Program".
@Rick
Yeah, they wouldn't have been able to get those guns anywhere else. ...like the ATF is the only 'supplier' of weaponry avai Any straw purchaser can get weapons at a gun show. Use your brain.lable.
US intervention has been enabled by the cheap costs of borrowing on the dollar as it is the global reserve currency and was AAA rated. That and the US Marines are the planet's premiere expeditionary force. The cost of borrowing on the AA+ rated dollar changes our odds of successfully recovering from expeditionary war. The assumption that we can fight expeditionary war as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan is a blunder. It is a matter of Private Sector debt. War affects our househods differently than business: families pay in money and blood, families miss the efforts of their most capable bread winners, either for a time or for ever, while business gets the expenditures on war. The principle of decisiveness in war has been abandoned, the outcome must be hastened, decisions hastily made are not decisiveness.
@Henry
Sure, a revolt I when the masses take up arms against a regime. A civil war is when the masses take up arms against each other. What am I, Merriam-Webster? Get a dictionary!
Who do you think "the other is" in Libya? You probably think the Vietnam war was a revolt.
The labeling of the Libyan conflict as a victory is nothing more than a sham. The media acts as though this was a revolution from below, but in reality was created by the involved nations of NATO. Even worse, the Western media portrayed rumors in the conflict as facts, launching a war of propaganda within Libya, and showing their true allegiance does not lie with the truth, but merely the will of the military industrial complex. It has already been discovered that many of the rebels involved have links to Al-Qaeda (you know, the group we were supposedly fighting in Afghanistan), but this should come as no surprise, as our government has worked with Al-Qaeda in the past when it considered it to be advantageous for their foreign policy (which resulted in catastrophic blowback). What is truly sad is that Obama has legitimized the neo-conservative foreign policy (not only in this conflict) and many liberals who denounced the Bush wars are now on board, showing that their allegiance is to party rather than policy, truly sickening.
As the terms 'North' & 'South' came into existence in 1954, Vietnam was 'united' before that. As the 'conflict' was between two different ideologies with society fought itself to defend each ideology, it would have to be considered a civil war.
*fighting
@Henry
That's the best you've got? Pretty lame.
When you're reduced to quibbling over semantics to make a point, you haven't got one. Stick a cork in the bottle and go to bed.
Great, a new variation on how the US can meddle. How about this, just stay out of other countries' affairs. As a taxpayer, I'd prefer not one cent be spent on war in other countries unless our security is DIRECTLY affected.
Agreed
Tha money could be spent elsewhere...like Americans getting jobs, infrastructure, social security, medicare, disability for our veterans, etc.
You are young. Please educate yourself. We can not afford to be isolationists. Read the history of FDR and his presidency. This country wanted to stay uninvolved during the Hitler / Nazi era. FDR seen how dangerous the world stage is and would be to the US if we didn't get involved.
The CIA running things in all those Islamic countries. Yup, that's really a new era in American foreign policy.
TxTy I think I was correct when I said "the start of their civil war". It is being used in future tense. As for the guns to Central America, I AGAIN...., refer you to Iran/Contra and the Fast and Furious Program.
The usual wingnuts on the right who have been criticizing President Obama are looking pretty stupid right now....as usual.
@BBob
Though I agree the US should keep its 'boots' on US soil, a helping hand in the form of air superiority to those who wish the freedom all people deserve, as long as they're willing to do the real fighting for what they desire , is never
wrong.
Is Zakariqa a CIA agent?
I'm only arguing semantics because that's the ONLY part of you or Rick's statements that are worth debating.
@Rick
Ha! IC & F&F were completely different scenarios. IC was about the 'laundering' of weapons and F&F is about the failure of the ATF to keep track of weapons it planned to use as evidence. Nice try....
So I guess you concede our statements are valid.
We did try to Democratically installed a government in palastian but when the people chose their leader, we said we didn't like their choice
.
The only thing I concede is that your statements are such nonsense they deserve little if no response.
TxTy In the end, the CIA and the ATF supplied the guns to Central America
@Rick
How does the laundering of weapons against approval become associated with or even compared to the bungling of a federal investigation/sting?
"The question before Libya was: Could such interventions be successful while keeping costs under control – both human and financial.
Today's answer is: Yes."
It's not over yet moron. Just wait until the "rebels" (Al Qaeda) come to us begging for ground troops. That is when you are going to see the real costs (both in money and in blood) of this illegal war.
Both of your statements and arguments are tripe.
Next I'll be reading Obama was resonsible for IC. Ludicrous...
@Rick
What's up, no more (un)intelligent repartee to lay on us?
Check your facts. The US government(CIA) supplied weapons to the Contras via Iran. The US government(ATF) SOLD weapons from gun shops (not gun shows) to Mexican Drug Cartels. You can't defend hypocrisy, or propaganda.
@FredS
As part of a global society, we're responsible to act as a positive influence on that society, much like it's your responsibility to act as a positive influence on your own, immediate, society.
As for the cancer, I guess you missed the release last week about the discovery of the '1 shot' lukemia cure. You really should read up about it, it's amazingly interesting.
oops....
*@Mac
First of all, it will take years, if not decades to rebuild north africa. just like iraq, just like afghanistan. if this thing had gone down the opposite way, neocons would be whipping nd lynching obama(or OBOMBER) if you have the sense of humor of a midwestern milk maid)[PS, all flyover states suck and are filled with uneducated semi-slave laborerers]. You know how it is, though. If you dont understand the people, geography, or language of the country in general, feel free to generalise all you you. Hell even speculate that the muslim brotherhoood(which isnt even active in libya) or hezbollah(same) or fatah(same!) will take over. Even funnier would be Al Qaeda, which has never had a square meter of tripolian real estate, Anyhow, you are all hillarious. goodnight.
@Rick
So what's your point? Different branches of the fed do stupid sh!t somwtimes? ALL branches do at one point or another!
You are exactly correct on that statement. When Obama attacked tanks,he violated the no UN no fly resolution (tanks can't fly). When Obama dropped bombed on the ground, he violated the arms embargo. When Obama didn't respond to congress after 60 days, he violated the War Powers Act. This branch of the Fed is doing some stupid sh$t.
Take note everyone....THIS is how you intervene in a country. You bring in partners who are willing to truly share the load, you take action after you have legitimacy and agreement from the international community, and you act on behalf of the humanitarian principles you're always talking about. Most importantly, you act in cases where the people you're trying to help are the ones bearing the responsibility for changing their country, rather than simply putting the system we want in place and then handing the keys back when we're done. We've now left an almost entirely positive influence on Libya, at minimal cost (not just financial; 0 U.S. casualties), and now it is the Libyans who will be responsible for putting their own new government in place (they are free to succeed or fail by their own efforts).
@Rick
You're absolutely right, Lybia isn't a democracy...yet. But it has the best chance it's had at becoming one since man landed on the moon. (lemme guess, that was all a hoax and was filmed on a sound stage?)
Egypt as an ally, a loss yes, but again, ours is not to decide. It's the choice of the people, like the people of Lybia, Syria, Iran, Yemen and at one point in time, about 235 years ago, the US. Sure, we can stick our wedges where we want or pick at the scabs, but in the end, it's the will of the common man in each of those countries. And to 'blame' the CIA and/or Obama for the common man of each of those places wanting the basic freedoms every human deserves, that's just preposterous.
@Rick
When Obama attacked tanks and dropped bombs, he did so under UN authorization as those weapons were being used to harm civilians, the WHOLE purpose of the resolution. It wasn't to start a war, it was to eliminate the possibility of Gadhafi harmimg the people he was supposed to be serving (much like the politicians on BOTH sides of the isle are supposed to do here, but very few actually achieve). To that end, the War Powers Act becomes superfluous.
“Compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libya operation was a bargain. It cost the U.S. about $1 billion.” Really Fareed…this is your hard hitting analysis? LOL, it is comical. First off, it probably cost more, and also what have we accomplished in Libya? Nothing…we have a transitional government over a fragmented coalition that is going to fracture, once the “Get rid of Gaddifi high” is gone.
To the earlier comments, the French were part of helping the U.S. gain its independence. The Haitians also helped. Google SEIGE OF SAVANNAH.
@JacklynD
*thumbs up*
@Rick
In the words of Roger Waters, 'Hello, hello, hello, is there anybody in there? Just smile if you can hear me. Is there anybody home?'
TxTy you are right. It's not ours to decide. We have problems in our own country. The (Un)Patriotic Act allows the government to wire tap peoples homes, phones, and cars. There is a major effort to disarm the civilian population in violation of the 2nd ammendment. The rights to protest are being challenged eg. BART in SF. People may be removed at night with no charges filed and held indefinitely. Checkpoint searches are common. Is this Libya, Syria, USSR, China or Nazi Germany? No, this is happening right here in the US.
I do agree with what you're saying on this Rick. Our freedoms that we fought for so many years ago are being taken away.
TxTy How's that for "is anybody home".
I didn't say I disagreed with the right of every US citizen to own weapons, I never said we should deny people the right to peacefully protest & I never said every US citizen has no right to privacy. The problem with most people is they see it as all or nothing. Carry that over to ANYTHING else in life and you're left with, starvation/obesity, pain/drug addiction, no buzz/alcohol poisoning, it's all about moderation...even though I'm SURE you'll disagree about that.
Right & left wingers think it's either their waay or the highway. That's BS on BOTH sides! Like the old saying goes, it takes two to tango, and we all have to share this big ball of mud whether we like it or not. The best and easiest way to get through it is to find a common, acceptable ground or none of it'll ever work.
Right on brother. It's not team Red vs. team Blue, we're all a part of team America. When we make it about right vs. left and create a poisonous political environment we all lose. America loses.
@jttaylort
& I'm prone to agree with that statement too. I don't really see what that has to do with the CIA & the situation in Lybia though.
it doesn't...just sayin' it is something I feel strongly about though, being that I am a veteran
TxTy This is not about US individual extremes. I think your rambling off the subject. The original subject was the disaster we have for a US Foriegn Policy. Which I then compared to the US Domestic Policy.
@Rick
You're all over the park here, Rick, and every ball's a fowl. U went from whining about the CIA in Lybia, then attempted to deflect that to IC & F&F & now you're on to the civil liberties of the citizens of this nation. Exactly how do they all gel?
Every ball is a fowl??? So every ball is a bird? I think you meant FOUL
So you think the decision to only fly sorties was a poor decision comparied to the decision to put thousands of feet on the ground in Iraq & Afghanistan? Niiiiiiiiice...
@Rick
Have you ever served in the military?
@jttaylort
I've sreved my country too, & I think that our foreign policy need to do it's best to keep our toops off of foreign lands, but I also feel we have the power and where-with-all to be the positive, global force, in conjunction with th rest of the free world, to 'have the backs' of thoe oppressed people who are willing to put their lives on the line for the freedoms we put our lives on the line for.
Totally agree with you. I would rather avoid spending trillions of dollars and more importantly losing any more of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. Especially for any other country but our own.
Was it really necessary to remove a leader of a sovereign nation? They were the legitimate government of the country and we illegally armed people to overthrow an officially recognized government. What gives us right to decide which government stays and which ones go? Why are we playing God? It is not up to us to decide what happens inside the sovereign boarder of another country. And, the people we are helping, they are not that clean either. These are the same fighters who fought our forces in Iraq. Look it up. Its not the method we need to change. We need to stop getting involved with the internal affairs of other countries. And, if you really feel like removing dictators, try Mugabe first. Is this really about freedom and democracy and doing the right thing? Please! Give me a break. And, I thought, Obama was going to be different than Bush. He turned out to be from the same ideology.
I agree with you about getting involved in other country's affairs. However, to be clear, this was NATO and the UN not just us. There are much more domestic issues that we need to focus our money and attention on...like the economy and public welfare in general.
TxTy If you look at our foriegn policy history, you can see the CIA involvement everywhere. If you doubt that, the CIA freely admits they have operatives in 130 countries. If you look past the propaganda "Right side of history", you'll see all of the problems our country has caused for other countries. Our own country is where we should be focused on.
@jttaylort
So I missed one, u gnu what I meant.
Lol, yeah I know just messin with ya!
I said we poke wedges & pick scabs! A revolution comes down to the common man though. Neither the CIA or Obama can make the masses rise up against a tyrant any more than you can change my mind. It ain't gonna happen!
Definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Here we are again once more time, messing with another country. Iraq, Afganistan and now Libya. How many more countries are we going to screw up? Iraq was fine before we went in and so was Libya. They did not attack us and we had no business going in.
@George Ayub
Their legitimacy ceased when they started killing those they were, as a governing body, supposed to protect.
@George Ayub
& we ain't 'in' nothin, we're 'over', the best place to be. Ask any military person, air superiority!
Obama voted against both Wars while Bush was in office. Then he dumps $1 billion into Libya. Was he jealous? Did he need his own little war? Qaddaffi is still missing. Chemical weapons stockpiles unaccounted for. Al queda backed rebels. Need I say more?
@jttaylort
I agree, but to blame the US or any specific part of it as being responsible for the downfall of any 'Arab Spring' tyrant is just pathetic politics.
Of course, I agree with that as well
TxTy are you from Texas as your name implies? If so awesome state!
@Givemeabreak
Really! Give m a break. A lil good will goes a long way. Before GWB became prez, we were at least respected globally, if not liked. Eight years after his inauguration there's nothing but contempt and disdain.
@jttaylort
Thanks! Don't necessarily agree with all the 'politics' of the state but def a native Texan & will fight for her honor whatever the cost.
You know its the same in my state (Georgia) a wonderful state, but don't agree with the politics.
But you know, that was exactly the point I was getting at earlier, moderation. We can't allow the Tea-partiers to drag us down any more than we can the tree-huggers. I don't have to like the politics but I DO have to respect the machine....something few if any of them are willing to do.
@Hettlingen. Your right. Obama persuaded the international community to support him in more wars and more financial burden.
If you don't respect the machine, nothing gets done. j. von's right, he found the middle of the road and I think history will show it as a positive step.
Obama made the right call under pressure, from everyone. This is America we are sworn to uphold and support Freedom where people fight for it. We may not get anything material out of it and it cost but it was a small price to pay to give Freedom a chance.
@Hettlingen. You are right. Obama persuaded the international community to support him in more wars and financial burden.
Fareed. again in his often seen zeal to tout Obama's successes, has jumped the gun in claiming that the outcome is favorable to the US. Know one knows what will happen, and which way the pendulum will swing. All men of a discerning mind will wait for a stable outcome before claiming that Obama is to be crowned king.
@Rick
Get real. Your still gonna whine about about the 1/1000 of what GWB spent on Iraq & Afghanistan that Obama sent in Lybia, whatever. And you never answered my question, you ever been in the military?
*spent on Lybia...
@Roger
Who you talking to?
Hettlingen. You're right. Obama persuaded the international community to support him with MORE wars and financial burden.
@Rick
I'll take your lack of an answer as a 'no'.....figures.
Fareed would do well to consider that Obama's possible foreign policy success, contrasts sharply with his failure her at home.
Probably a paper pusher too. Wouldn't know an honest days work if it bit him in the a$$.
New era? Give me a break! Obama is totally cluless and only got lucky because the British and French ran things so well. All we've done is launch a few predator sorties and some refuelling. The British SAS have been operating alongside the rebels for the last few weeks which is probably why things suddenly came to a head.
@jttaylort
I'm amazed at how many people who have never served in the military think they know so much about something they've never experienced. If I were one of those rebels on the ground, I be ecstatic knowing I had the UN (US, GB, France) at my back and controlling my skies.
I know what ya mean. Yeah I think I would too. What branch were you in? Me, Army
Oh this is new?
Arabs won another round of "people's" government. Now this countries will unite against Israel and will lose another war.
Than it will return to way it was.
TxTy I'm guessing the paper pushing comment and work ethic comment is about Obama. If it is about me, last week I was on a 25 foot ladder painting a house. It's sad when your only defense of our pathetic foriegn policy is personal attacks on other people.
Fareed zakaria sir you have elaborated well how U.S. could change from a unilateral to a multilateral global role. Its important U.S. find new methods to counter the same theory of use of force through a cheaper option. However what Obama and other leaders who sought freedom for the Libyan people has done justice. now its Libyan peoples turn to show an example to the world how civilize they are in managing the transition.
I was AF. Mobile Radar Repair. Ready to jump out of a plane with a mobile, 2 trailer unit in less than 24 hours notice.
I worked a lot with the AF
@jttaylort
Nice talking to a brother-in-arms. Been an all-nighter & it's time to call it.
@Rick
You STILL haven't answered my question. Sounds like the majority of the politicians .
Nice talking to you too brother-in-arms. Going to bed myself
@Rick
It's pathetic when all you can do is whine about the nominal amount of money spent to protect a society while putting the citizens of your own society at minimal risk while accepting the thousandfold expense of to protect a society and putting hundreds of thousands of your own societies citizens at maximum risk. THAT'S a pathetic foreign policy.
@Rick
But I'm sure you want to blame Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama too, that, and the debt crisis.
Fareed should be mindful of what every farmer knows...don't count your chickens before they hatch...
Every President does things right sometime. Obama's strategy in Libya was handled better than nearly every war we have been in. Our 1 billion that it cost will most likely be paid for in savings that we get from increase oil volume that flows to Europe. I'm a "non-compromising" Tea Bagger too! So F U CNN!
I strongly disagree with the author of this post. The only reasonl why Libya was possible is because the leader was so isolated and hated. A perfect case study is the complete lack of action in Syria. If the Arab League had not given their blessing and opposed the rebellion, the EU countries would have done nothing. Libya was also unique in that it is on the doorstep of Europe. Again, a perfect example why nothing is being done to Syria. Or even better Sudan.
So the new model of us letting the Europeans lead will work if there is absolute consensous in the world community and the offending country is adjacent to a military base. For right or wrong the US invaded Iraq and Afganistan because it the president said it was in our strategic interest. I would hope that if Obama believed a military action was in our strategic interest and the EU and world was luke warm or just did not care, he would do the right thing.
Libya was not a problem country for the US, or at least had not been for more than a decade. Iran and Syria however are huge problems and while Obama is patting himself on the back for something of little value in Libya, Syria is killing its citizens and Iran moves closer to atomic weapons. When will Obama show genuine courage to confront Iran and Syria?
The Problem with the US is its system of Governance, as FZ pointed out in an earlier article about the need for a parliamentary system in the US. The President cannot deal with domestic economic polices and also deal with international political issues. The federated states system is very complex and economic polices formulated at the Center are all about providing subsides. Why should the president be creating jobs ? Its the business of the States. The President cannot be commander of the forces as well as commander of the economy with in the country. What the people want is the President to be a Dictator and yet not give him the power, power is held by the Congress and Senate. This is a stupid system and all the problems in this country derive from it, but we cannot be wrong, we are the Greatest Country in the World, but also the Stupidest and the Debtest.
Well, if you have the answers, why don't you run for the job? All you need to be is at least 45 yo and a US citizen? C'mon save us, save the world. We are waiting for you.
Could not agree more. Great article. Needs to be the policy going forward.
Problem is that Obama's approach is so intellectual, that it just goes through most of the republicans but it is good for the country. Ppl like Mccain and Palin do not get the nuances of the approach.
But I disagree that Libya is not of our ital interest. Libyan crude is one of the sweetest , i.e. it's very easy (low cost) to refine. If we are getting oil tankers from Saudis and Iraq, it should not be difficult to get those tankers from the Mediterranean. Also I disagree that the ppl in Libya only recognize European countries as saviors. Not sure about Britain as it is always deemed as colonizer, but America and France both are being cheered in the streets of Libya.
History will teach the Iraq invasion and Libyan intervention as 2 extreme models for foreign intervention in a sovereign country.
I hope the following does not reflect America's new foreign policy in terms of looking the other on genocide taking place in India. I came across an article today that I thought I would share with you. It is indeed extremely disturbing. I will leave it to you to judge.
SOURCE: Big News Network
"Amnesty International is calling for an impartial investigation into mass graves found in Indian-controlled Kashmir.Sunday, India's Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission released a report saying a three-year investigation had uncovered 2,156 unidentified bodies in 38 sites in the region. In a statement released Monday, Amnesty International asked Indian officials to allow impartial forensic experts to carry out a thorough investigation of the skeletal remains. The rights group also urged Indian authorities to ensure the safety of the witnesses who gave statements to police during the investigation.Indian authorities conducted the inquiry in response to allegations that Indian security forces have committed rights abuses in fighting a more than two-decade-long Muslim separatist insurgency. Rights activists say at least 8,000 people have gone missing in Indian Kashmir since the separatists began fighting in 1989 for independence from Hindu-majority India or a merger with Muslim-majority Pakistan. Rebel attacks and Indian government crackdowns have killed at least 50,000 people. Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed in full by both.Some information for this report was provided by AP."
@RM Stick to the arguments presented here by FZ and keep the discussions to it.
The fundamental issue here is violence associated with Islamic peoples of the World and what role the rest of the World is forced to play. As for the US, it is not bordered by a Muslim nation and this makes its relationship with Islam different from others that have Muslim neighbors; where violence is always evident. There needs to be a Global consensus of Non Muslim Nations to the situation with Islamic nations and the two groups must come together to find solutions. No single country, let alone the US can solve this chronic problem with Islamic people. They as a group are unable to govern themselves where ever they are in spite of their common beliefs. Clearly there is something seriously wrong with the Religion or with those that play a leadership role in it. The Day of Recogning will come soon as Muslims spread through Europe and America through population shifts. This is a Weapon that the Islamic faithful are relying on to one day dominate the World. This belief that theirs is the true religion and their Allah wants them to do his bidding is at the core of the problem. I believe that only when peoples of the World realize that God does'nt exist and believe in their own stupidity will the World come to an order that is more befitting of an intelligent human race. At present the Human race is a disgrace and its demise is justified.
I could not agree with you more that one would have thought ethnic cleansing would have stopped with Kosovo and Bosnia. However, as is quite evident in India the ethnic cleansing and murders of muslims in Kashmir is very much alive. Perhaps it is time for USA and NATO to bomb New Delhi as military assets are closeby in Afghanistan and Bahrain and this could be accomplished with minimal cost. Moreover, this strategy worked in Bosnia and Kosovo. This would make India understand that even though NATO and USA are busy with the Arab Spring, people are cognizant of the atrocities being committed against the minorities in India. Otherwise, my concern is that acceptance of gencide by countries such as India could imply the acceptance of such policies as part of new American foreign policy.
Sorry I left. I went to look at AP news. Guess what? This just in, the CIA has dirty hands with the NYPD. Thanks to the CIA the NYPD was caught running spying operations in the state of New Jersey. This covert operation started at the same time the CIA started the Arab Spring covert operation. The news just continues to support my statements. In answer to the military question. No, too young for Vietnam, and to old for Iraq. However, service in the military does not translate into higher intellegence. It does promote blindly following leaders. Having said that, I do have the utmost respect for the people in our armed forces.
In the words of Thomas Paine, "time makes more converts than reason". I have a sense that the president has an unflappably long view; that he will not be deterred from seeing the forest. Only a few short years ago it would have been unimaginable, no unthinkable that, foreign policy would have been Mr. Obama's sweet spot.
The problem however rests squarely in obstruction being the unintended consequence of a system designed to provide checks and balances. As commander in chief, the president has demonstrated the most effective use of "executive" authority. As economist in chief however, he remains obstructed rather than constrained by the system of check and balance. This is a form of obstructionism that is intended to render this president impotent by denying him any success and ultimately undermine his re-election prospects. The problem with this obstructionism is that the president's success or failure is inextricably linked to the failure or success of the general population.
Good post and eloquent as our leader. I always had a good feeling regarding Obama and foreign policy. The way he carried himself in his campaigning and his demeanor. If I felt the least bit insecure with him in foreign policy I would not have voted for him, as that is what I throw the most weight behind when I vote for our Commander In Chief. We have a great president. President Barack Obama is a great and history will reflect upon it. It's sad how so many US citizens living in these times don't see it and our missing out. He does his job and when he scores the next obvious big point, the congress and voices that attempt to obstruct him show their nakedness.
the libyan rebels and france showed a failing leaderless america how its done.obama? on vacation doing nothing as usual!
Two weeks or two months onward the Gaddafi's will be history as they should be, but what next will the havens will be the land of Libya? I am sure the NATO and allied forces will start putting up there camps for a longer time and that will be the time that Iraq and Afghan history will be repeated in Libya and we may come up with stories of Abu Graib and Pul Charkhi abuses of local population simply because the NATO or allied forces are not coming to help the Libyans but to implement the agenda of west which was presented by French Sarkozy back in an international conference summoned in the name of North Atlantic and western African countries economic forum, so my Libyan brothers and sisters keep your fingers cross because man never learns and specially the power hungry western establishment, my heart also goes with the common European people as they been fooled and will continue to be fooled in the name of so called personal liberty and basic human rights.
It's a little too early to gloat, Mr. Zakaria–things are far from finished in Libya.
Great, we have this framework for decision making. Now if we can get our future leaders to honor it; unlike our last Bozo.
If nothing else, Fareed is very bold for planting the flag of victory and touting the success of this strategy. The fires of conflict are still burning and we haven't even gotten to the point where the dust settles. Yet, we now know that this is the ideal model for future intervention? I'm not forecasting that Fareed is wrong...I just think it is too early to make many of these claims.
"The question before Libya was: Could such interventions be successful while keeping costs under control – both human and financial. Today's answer is: Yes."
Is this guy for real? A war or "intervention" is not only bad for everyone except the few it enriches, it makes us all a little less human to allow it in the first place.
You are an idealist. Intervention is necessary because dictators in these countries have enriched themselves and have been violating its citizens, not different from the days of Monarchies in Europe. The enriching by American businessmen in these places before, during and after intervention should not stop us or anyone from liberating the people there. WE can of course control the enriching by outsiders. But it is the businessmen in the US that dictate foreign policy. So blame yourself for the kind of country you live in and have created.
Gethetruth
The Problem with the US is its system of Governance, as FZ pointed out in an earlier article about the need for a parliamentary system in the US. The President cannot deal with domestic economic polices and also deal with international political issues. The federated states system is very complex and economic polices formulated at the Center are all about providing subsides. Why should the president be creating jobs ? Its the business of the States. The President cannot be commander of the forces as well as commander of the economy with in the country. What the people want is the President to be a Dictator and yet not give him the power, power is held by the Congress and Senate. This is a stupid system and all the problems in this country derive from it, but we cannot be wrong, we are the Greatest Country in the World, but also the Stupidest and the Debtest.
The decisions made by Obama have been nothing but good for America and its troops, its security, its image, and its economy and it stime for people to realize we have a leader with a brain that he knows how to use and exercises it constantly not like The Shrub who had no access to a brain whatsoever and did notning but disgrace America and all it stands for on top of killing many innocent people while banckrupting the country and pocketing all the money. Put The Shrub and Cheeneey and thier crew in PRISON where they belong. Good job Mr. Obama.
What about the question of whether we should have intervened in the first place? This was essentially a civil war within Libya. The fact that our intervention was more cleverly managed than it usually is doesn;t address the basic issues of the wisdom and morality of rhe policy.
Fareed Zakaria is Obama's Monica Lewinsky
Is he an intern at the WH? If not then how can you say?
Egypt overthrew it's leader without our help...Tunisia overthrew it's leader without our help. Libya probably would have ultimately succeeded as well. To act like the U.S. made the difference is something you cannot prove. Obviously, we made it a little quicker...but overthrowing a dictator is easy (we overthrew Saddam Hussein a lot quicker), but achieving victory is much more elusive, as George Bush found out. Is Obama prepared to pay the price to make sure Libya succeeds to democracy and security?
1) Hussein was NOT brought down quicker.
2) The war in Iraq was at the price of many lives, US lives ... not so in Libya
3) The US shared this with other countries before agreeing to help.
4) None other country was in agreement with us going into Iraq except the Prime Minister of the UK.
5) No other country agreed to share in the burdon and the victory.
Mr. Zakaria,
The conditions that you listed are the reflective results of President Obama's "vision", which you did not address.
If you review the President's 2009 UN speech, you will see that he outlines the strategy that he pledges his commitment to, i.e. covenant.
The events that have taken place in the middle-east (glorious land) have followed exactly the vision of the President.
The events in the middle-east have also followed another vision , one that describes the same events, which many people will not take seriously, and yet its words reflect the "belief" of the President and also describe in detail the social and political events.
....you may want to take a serious look at Daniel 11:36-45, Rev.13:11-18...you may have a problem understanding the symbols...but they are political-international in nature and they deal precisely with the "vision of freedom now" of President Obama.
I put forth the challenge to you and all your readers.....compare the vison and UN speech of President Obama to the above scriptures.....to see the parallel....if you want to see the Truth.
Was it part of Obama's freedom vision to support Saudi Arabia sending troops to crush revolt in Bahrain. The only vision is petro$$$s.
Libya is a big positive in a world of negatives... that is there might be hope for the world yet.
Bush's fault .
The obsequious Fareed Zakaria seems to have a daily opinion stating the obvious. He takes every opportunity he can to laud President Obama who, with ratings under 40%, cannot be doing everything right.
Fareed lauds Obama because he wants to be Secy State after 2012 IF Obama wins. He is the neocons Trojan Horse.
For Fareed anything related to Islam is the only important thing in the world. I am not against rebels as i don't like Gadhafi. However, I can see Fareed's excitement on Muslim issues and lack of interest in other's.
Believe me, for these rebels, removing Gadhafi was the easiest part. Now real struggle will start. That is reconstruction. US or any one else cannot help. They have to rebuild wisely. Hope they succeed in establishing a secular society.
When either side (Dems or Reps) respond to a strategy entirely based on whether it was created by "their" side or "the other side," it's not very helpful. The same issue was true when everything Bush did was horrible and evil. The fact remains that Gadhafi's handling of the popular uprising was brutal. If you look at the economic cost (the real cost to date, not the worst or best case imagined cost), how can anyone argue that it was anything but a bargain? And folks who complain about the US always having to bear the brunt of the cost (both soft and hard dollar), again, how can anyone complain? To be sure, it's only "the beginning of the end" of the game so to speak, but a realist looking at the facts (and I warn you, one of my favorite belongings is a book autographed by Richard Nixon, so I'm not entirely "liberal" in nature) has to at the very least be somewhat pleased at the current outlook. It causes legitimate complaints about the administration to get lost in the noise.
Most Americans are sick and tired of footing the bill to save these countries from themselves. Our own country is falling apart with "crumbling infrastructure", but has been ignored in order to man and fund a series of Bush's crusades. 9/11 should have been answered with an overwhelming smackdown of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan instead of an excuse to clean up Bush's family business with Saddam. The last 10 years could have been spent fixing our own problems and we would be much better for it.
Isolationism is dangerous, especially in today's world. Read the history of FDR and his time in office and what the world and this country was going through. The US didn't want involvement w/Nazi Germany and wanted to remain isolated. President Roosevelt seen that we could not sit back and not eventually be in danger ourselves.
I have respect for Mr.Zakaria but I don't know where he got from that we, the U.S., got into a sort of pre-arranged accord when NATO intervened in Libya. The reality was that Kadhafi's forces were at the gates of Benghazi when the French initiated an air assault alone, followed by the British a couple of days later. Then they were joined by the Danes, Norwegians, and Qataris.
People at Benghazi were hanging French flags from their balconies; not American flags.
During those fateful days, were were furiously pedaling back, away from the conflict and actually with conflicting statements and actions from every corner of the U.S. government.
The neo-cons wanted to invade, something that would have been a gross blunder.Obama spoke of sitting that one out.
I believe our actions there were rather indecisive and and we were just dragged by the events. That was not the creation of a new doctrine. That was...nothing.
hmmm, isn't Syria now satisfying all your criteria? Where is the US for the Syrian people? Its a slippery slope.
Agree with Obama administration approach, however success will be determined by what Libya emerges from chaos.Young men with automatic weapons and no rule of law is a bad combination. The leadership vacuum has to be filled quickly. Is a new strategy needed to deal with failed states? Yemen, Somalia and yes Iraq and Afghanistan have the potential to implode. Isolate them? A policy of containment may be the only answer. We cannot be in Iraq or Afghanistan forever and they know it.
Great article, although telling the US gov't not to stake personal pride and credit above a shared goal is a silly notion. After all, a politician's job is to get reelected, and voters are, what's the word...dumb. Self-aggrandizement is an easier sell to a dumb base than is well-considered altruism, so there will always be a push for credit.
Only other thing - there are 1000 billions in a trillion, not 10.
1) A local group that was willing to fight and die for change; in other words, "indigenous capacity".
-Every country has residents that are willing to fight and die for change... This includes the American people as well as majority of the middle-class if they continue pushing them to the dirt. A country of freedom and liberty is not satisfied merely being told what to do. That isn't democracy.
Also, the United States has had many failed approached with their foreign policy I don't even need to mention. At the same time, their foreign policy helped a country like my place of birth (South Korea) gain their freedom. That's why I love America but people don't realize you can't save everyone if you can't even save your own country from its own people... That "American" unity and the whole "stand together, stand strong" barely exists anymore. People don't trust each other, I know people who got many "friends" that end up stealing or scheme against them. Even with all the censorship of violence and swearing as well as their many attempts to stop the war on drugs/prevent people to smoke cigarettes fail.
America needs a unilateral solution that heals the entire system, not just remove "undesirables" from the community. And they need to stop the controlled-media for news report... seriously what kind of democracy is this? It saddens me when a British and Russian news broadcast network does a more accurate and revealing news report than America.
Two words: gulf war. Third word: Kosovo. CNN is feeding the shortsighted political beast by denying a real counter argument that carries more weight than the dramatic frame zakaria is casting on this situation.
Fareed Zakaria: Globalist Propaganda Solicitor
Mr. Fareed, we know your agenda. Its perfectly clear as of late. With your "pragmatic" approach, is there nothing that cannot be compromised? Nothing sacred?
What "sacred" values are you referring to? The most sacred thing to protect is the lives of US servicemen and women. We can't just feed them into machine gun fire as if they were expendable supplies. This cautious strategy of Obama's appears to have been a brilliant success. I know that this thought makes Conservative heads hurt as the Irresistable Force of Truth crashes into the Immovable Object of Conservative Propaganda, but I feel your pain and am sympathetic to your plight.
I like Fareed's view on several issues. Dislike the way we want to start a war intervention, but this is not leading from behind, more like coming down to earth. I think Americans understand this part of this policy (not on the usual big ego trip causes the resentment in others and the operation to fail) Think every situation is unique, this one was started with Gadhafi being a revolutionary 41 year's ago, then after becoming rich and powerful he alienated the people such that he had to hire mercinaries and invoke fear on the populace, army was out there with bad training, broken weapons, all for a reason. The best doctrine is the conditions mentioned in this opinion piece, don't announce what you are going to do and keep a low profile, we're not chosen humans, just share a part of the planet. It is not important that we be the greatest people, we're not really, we just have more technical innovation that made us more wealthy, money doesn't always make for a happy life as we know we have problems. I wish the rebels luck.
Neither the neo-cons nor any other Republicans deserve any credit in this affair. IN fact, just the opposite. All they did was criticize the President. They threatened to impeach him over violations of the War Powers Act. They threatened to de-fund the operation. They did everything they could to cause the operation, our President and our military to fail. They deserve derision, not credit. They deserve to be symbolically tared and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.
Zakaria's argument is fatally flawed because of one word: Syria.
So you say, Brett. But in reply may I say:
Octagon.
Since we are not involved in Syria, it has no bearing on Zakaria's argument.
I believe his point is that if we use the "new model" developed by the hawkish New Progressives, we SHOULD be bombing Syria...
Zakaria USA is Broke and People in the Real World are tired of your and American Foreign Policy Propoganda.
Has Fareed run out of angles to write about Libya? There's nothing "new" about this multi-nation approach, particularly for US activities in or near Europe. Consider the intervention in Bosnia;; or even the world wars. Seems rather insulting to fellow NATO members. Furthermore (and somewhat contradictorily, I admit), we are carrying most of the water here.
GIVE ME A BREAK! Obama is taking advantage of at the fact that the U.S. citizenry is very gullible to such rhetoric. He did nothing but take the credit for event that other initiated. He did not have anything to do with capturing Bin Ladin but give the okay take action after others planning that had taken place much earlier. He did not initiate the process; he just gave the okay. Likewise, what has he done re Egypt and Libya? Nothing but tell the bad guys to get out or else. Or else, what? He is not a world leader to take seriously. He is one who takes great pleasure in pointing fingers though.
Rule #1 of Conservative Propaganda: Non-Conservative leaders are never successful – even if they ARE successful, they can NEVER be successful.
Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan to catch bin Laden, but he wasn't in Afghanistgan. He was in Pakistan watching soccer on wide-screen TV. Americans who died there died for nothing.
Bush Jr. invaded Iraq to capture "20,000 TONS of bioactive and radioactive weapons grade material, but there were no WMDs in Iraq. Americans who died there died for nothing.
Maybe the Trojan War was a stupid waste of men, money, and time, but at least Helen was actually IN Troy.
We did NOT invade Afghanistan to get UBL. We invaded Afghanistan to weaken Al Qaeda...Stop being such a revisionist.
KennyG,
Are you part of the White House staff? Obama's cabinet? A government official, perhaps? Your idiotic views of what the president has done, or has not done is so far off base, that I question whether or not you received a proper education. You are a typical "Obama Hater". Assuming the president has had no say in positive actions, but in the same light, blaming him for the negative. This only highlights the hateful and damaging rhetoric your kind spews. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute to society, please do us all a favor and shut it.
Great job Mr.President, I hope after your presidency, many others Presidents will follow "share the burden" rules, and if they wouldn't, people will be smart enough to question them before getting in to any other wars (by our selves). So, I am not going to be too optimistic about our people, because we are "Americans", after all.
I think Mr. Zakaria is the most intelligent voice in our media. If only FOX and MSNBC would deliver the news in such a straight forward and honest way our nation would be SOOOO much better.
I also believe President Obama has done an outstanding job in the Libya revolution. It scares me to think of how the republican party / tea party radicals would have handled this. I have absolutely ZERO confidence in any of the republican presidential candidates except perhaps Huntsman, but he is a centrist and will never be accepted by the radicals in his party.
Mr Zakaria....welcome to your own "Mission Accomplished" moment. The issues in Libya are far from over and the cost and level of participation required by the US and NATO remains to be seen. This is just the beginning. And like Iraq and Afghanistan....if you break it...you bought it. The point of your piece should be that American foreign policy under Obama may be different tactically (and I commend Obama for having the foresight not to put boots on the ground – so far)...but in fact our policy hasn't changed if we still believe our role is to oust dictators in other sovereign nations in the name of liberating its people. The lesson we were supposed to learn in Iraq and Afghanistan is its easy to take out the dictator...but then what?
Any time a totalitarian dictator is overthrown is a good day. It makes the world a better place.
I know every Conservative is trying to spin this success into a defeat somehow, but that is their nature. If President McCain had implemented the same policy with the same results, there would be flags flying from the porches of every Republican household.
It is not a defeat. It simply wasn't warranted.
First off – I'm not a conservative....but you would have to inject some political bias to make your point because you don't actually have one. Your comment is laughable...its only a "good day" if the dictator removed is replaced with some form of self governance for the population. If he's replaced with another dictator nothing's changed. Guess you forgot that the current regime in Iran was due to "revolution"....how's that working out. Egypt being run by the military....not looking so good. The Taliban will be running Afghanistan within months of us pulling out. Too early to call this success. Remember the Iraqi's tearing down the Saddam statue!
CNN giving a good spin for Obama amking America look weak
This president with brains is clearly doing a better job than the old one with bravado. You might have a chance of crawling out of the grave the previous guy dug out for you.
Please remember that neoconservatives wanted to see any good Democratic president to fail everything so that they can take over their conservative agenda. They will continue to be denial on Obama's success and make a reverse the policy back in the negative direction once they take over Obama's place like they did they do with the Bush tax cut despite Clinton's positive budget surplus outcome.
Fahreed wants to make it sound oh so cool with some kind of new foreign policy. Reality check: The US is broke and hated by the rest of the world for spending a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the new foreign policy.
Obama should get credit for doing this the right way, but it also should not be ignored that Presidents respond to what gets offered to them. This was an easier position to do the right thing. Labeling it new US diplomacy is mostly just partisan spin.
Not sure this is partisan spin. McCain all but avowed and all out war with Iran over nuclear weapons during his presidential run. Instead of a physical war, the US used technology to set back their program a couple of years, buy some time and look for regime change. Now the Arab uprising comes along. Instead of boots on the ground against Ghadaffi, who remember, was becoming more open with the US, we put bombs on the ground and protected the militants waging the war. For those of you who remember your history, it's not unlike the French protecting American port cities from the British during our Revolutionary war. They gave us cover on the ground; we did the same for the Libyans. I think the administration has done a good job of NOT getting sucked into the difficulty of the Middle East including Syria. In the end, the lesson from Afghanistan is that if a people are not willing to stand up, and possibly die for their freedom, then the US cannot force it upon them. Libya was executed the right way, with a coalition, under the coordination of NATO. The only real question is the legality of the "war" with regard to the War Powers Act. It's hard o define our engagement there as a war given the loose definition of war (e.g. War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc.). Overal, A+ to the Administration. The real question now is, "What's next?"
All I have to say is Oh My God, serioiusly
A great man once said the following:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people...This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." – Dwight D Eisenhower
So if Zakaria thinks that crap like this in Libya is a bargain...don't forget...the hundrerds of millions we've spent is money we didnt spend on:
-the poor
-alternative energy
-infrastructure
...I could go on.
I wonder if he thinks the 60,000 troops we have in Germany is a great deal too? Subsidizing the military budgets of other countries.
Where were you when Bush Administration lied to the country about Weapons of Mass Destruction and attacked Iraq ... months after starting a war in Afganistan to supposedly smoke Bin Laden out of his cave. Sorry, I remember all that like it was yesterday ... probably so I can refresh the minds with selective memories.
Zakaria assumes that it's "Mission Accomplished" in Libya. Where have we heard that mistake before? Sure, others were quick to criticize but Zakaria is too quick to praise.
So, in the following scenario who is the tough guy in the bar?
* A large beefy guy who stands on a table, pounds his chest, shows the gun in his belt, glares at everyone, and calls for anyone to "bring it on."
* The quiet guy at the corner table who raises one finger. Two other large guys escort the large beefy guy out the door, taking his gun as they do so.
I'll take the quiet guy any time.
This is not a model. It was low-risk from the start. Libya never posed an actual threat to the US or allies. It just turned out to be a convenient target. Mr. Zakaria, kindly stick to comparing apples to apples. We are capable of forming our own opinions.
Thank God there is a Zakaria!!!!!! I can't believe how naive these right wing GOP followers are. I know that the education in the US is bad but really give me a break- one hopes that sooner or later the American public will clue in and start thinking for themselves. Obama is the best thing America has and the right wingers know it- they just can't put the country before themselves. Do they have no shame????? Apparently not!!! Hopefully the rest of the country will start getting it. ! I mean can you picture our oivernment being run by any of the GOP'S- and you thought we have issues now!!!!!! NOT!!!!!
Left wing, religious WACKO. The number of exclamation points you use is not in direct correlation with your intelligence level. And criticizing GOPers of being followers is fairly disingenuous considering your praise to the god thing for this particular sycophant whom you obviously agree with 100% of the time...
canda, I suppose I should have excluded you from the notion that we are capable of forming our own opinions. Yours appear to have been created elsewhere. I'll just leave you alone to march along with the rest of the drones. Sorry!
Very naive! Your article sounds like a declaration of "Mission Accomplished". The US military routed Hussein's army and the Taliban in weeks. The remaining ten years and most of the $1.3 Trillion in expense has been spent trying to create conditions for factions in civil war to come together and solve their problems democratically. Libya is in tribal civil war. NATO backed a tribal coalition of convenience where we have very little visibility on the various players' interests. NATO did no more than give tactal air cover to a race riot. We gave people we don't really know heavy weapons that they can now use to press their own individual interests. How many revenge killings will be acceptable? What is NATO's contingency if ethnic cleansing starts?
I'd wait until after all the "Freedom Fighters" turn in their weapons and the first peaceful elections are held before tallying the tab and ringing in a "new era in U.S. foreign policy".
New era...baloney! Is that why the U.S. paid 75% of NATO's operational costs?
Actually in this caseMr. Zakaria is right on! Truly, President Obama deserves all the credit for initiating this change w/o a single American boot on the ground while cleverly letting the Europeans take the center scene.
Having said what about Mr.Zakaria has established a by now very well known penchant for commenting on everything under the sun, and also playing both sides of the aisle just to give him enough leverage to wriggle out if things don't turn out the way he has PROPHESIZED! And if indeed things go totally contrary to his prophesies then he just never ever refer to it again, just as it glaringly happened a mere 2 days ago on the Libyan issue a mere 3 days ago on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer when he commented with full authority that Gaddaffi being a soldier will never run away but will fight to his death. Where is Gaddaffi now Mr. Zakaria?
Likewise his prophesies on the US economy, the Debt Crisis he has made broad sweeps saying that on the one hand US is in deep decline/the economy is in peril, and even on the debt issue saying that we are in deep trouble on the one hand and at other times totally downplaying the threat.
All this emanates from his CRAVING for public office such as the US Secretary of State which was clandestinely demonstrated when a web site appeared out of nowhere in 2004 urging the next US President to appoint Mr. Zakaria as the Secretary of State.
Many of these prophesies such as the Arab Spring where he valiantly defended the Muslim Brotherhood and also Hamas as faces of moderation and chastised the American people for branding them radicals has a lot to do with his well entrenched Pro-Islamist, Anti-American, Anti-Semite agenda. In his Islamic quest he flagrantly CHERRY-PICKS data to give his own twist to stories to pursue his agenda.
No wonder, less & less Americans and fellow Indians (like me) are convinced on Mr. Zakaria’s even handedness at anything remotely concerned with his Muslim religion.
Amit-Atlanta-USA
SORRY about the too many typos! Did not proof read it.
Lessons learned from Iraq and Vietnam? I think so
the fact that you are comparing this to Iraq and Vietnam shows just how brainwashed a liberal that you are. wow! it blows the mind....
I think the what really ticks off most people in this country (U.S.) is not the fact that we were in the background, or that we were involved, but the lies that this current administration told us. Look, when you say it's only going to last days and not weeks. When you go in because this mad man is killing people left and right, who are civilians... shouldn't that be a call to arms to go in and do something quickly? If you really cared about the people of Libya, you would end the blood shed as quickly as possible. In my opinion, this is payback for Libya celebrating the Lockerbie terrorist getting out of jail to go home to Libya and die from cancer and yet he is perfectly fine to this day. Anyway's, now we have a country that is ripe for Al Quaida to actually have their own country now. Way to go world leaders for not thinking this one through! Idiots!!!!
U.S will soon to legalize ABORTION just like GAY MARRIAGE.
Yay! If only it were true...or remotely on topic.
I'm sorry I wasn't aware that Libya was a wild success. As far as I can tell all we've accomplished is removing a dictator and allowing an unorganized group of rebels to take control of a country with no clear indication of what type of government will be set up or whether or not the countries new leader will have a pro-American view. This is the Middle East, where ruthless dictators are just one coux away from gaining power. Going about pounding our chests like we just accomplished something in Libya reeks of a George Bush style "Mission Accomplished" event.
The Obama policy is to get international support but not the United States congress. Obama is a loser
What a prattling sycophant Zakaria is...
Great Article and on the money. Great win for Obama and his administration. GOP and neoconservatives are idiots for their short sightedness. They will never again (nor I they wanted) be able to gain any credibility in foreign policy with their Holy American Empire aspirations and unilateralism. Obama has got some big wins with these bad guys (Osama and Gadhafi) either eliminated or removed from power under his watch. He put the Democrats in the drivers seat in foreign policy and showcased that the Republicans brand does not know a damn thing about how to conduct America's best interest across the globe with any kind of wisdom. Good for the Dems in 2012.
I'm sure glad liberals are now coming around to Hawkishness as a means to get re-elected...compromise your ethics, morals, and integrity much?
President Obama did this? Wow. All this time I thought other nations got involved because Italy, France, Spain and the UK GET THEIR OIL FROM THERE!!! F00L.
In politics it all comes down to perception just like the economy. In Obama's case, he wins (collects) this outcome as credit. Got to love it. GOP not so much.
So, just to be clear, you're all for invading sovereign nations and bombing as long as it helps get YOUR guy elected, right? New Progressives are AWESOME!
Zakaria, your list of conditions forgot two items: a vital American interest at stake and Congressional approval. But these things are not important to Obama. As long as some other countries or organizations of foreign nations says it's OK, then we're good to go. Obama has made the US a mercenary for hire at no cost.
Fareed – great article. Doesn't this approach also politically damage the GOP? Obama's approach demonstrates their can be real cuts in defense spending because the costs are being shared by US partners. Less defense spending...with the job still getting done – means more spending on social programs – looks like its about to get interesting.
If you want less military intervention then you should support Ron Paul. Obama's been as much of a war monger as Bush was.
You might want to check your facts. The US funds a majority of UN. This was not a "shared cost" war like this article would lead you to believe. Go look at how many non-US fighter planes flew bombing sorties over Libya since March.
I would think that a pro-leading foriegn policy is the better choice so that for example, we know if our people are dying its not from the orders of some foriegn General who we know nothing about but from the President! Also America might as well not be a super-power if we aren't going to lead from the front instead of from Behind like Mr.Obama wants!
a bargain!? spending a billion dollars to put some new regime in that we'll be ousting in 10 years is hardly a bargain. why do we keep messing around in this area? has history taught us nothing?
"Not a bad model for the future"....so our new "model" for entering a conflict in a sovereign nation is for "rebels" to ask for our help? So, our new model will not consider an attack on our nation a legitimate reason for war?...Hey, as long as we save a couple bucks we get to bomb whomever we choose. Great plan, Zakaria. Now, go back to your books and keyboard and let men of action take care of the tough stuff...
Of course no one on the right would think of giving credit where credit is due. this was an intelligent mission, just like taking out Osama – but unless we make a lot of noise like Bush the Decider rushing in with our 6 guns a blazin and the great prognosticator Cheney saying we will be thought of as Liberators – I just really do not think the Right is capable of understanding intelligence and if they did, they are so he!! bent on defeating this President they could not even accept the facts and work together for the good of America
Why do people like you try to give all the credit or all the blame to one politician in a suit?
Please give me ONE reason how bombing a sovereign nation which hasn't aggressed outside it's borders in DECADES is intelligent?
gimme a break. Every country is different. Every situation different. This author trying to say this one example is a new policy is just garbage. A pattern takes more than an example of one.
Its a brilliant approach and the result is shows that will collective resolve you are
more likely to
achieve result. If the people you want to liberate to don't share the vision then its not worth, the Liybian have paid the price.
collective resolve and billion dollar fighter jets ruling the sky.
fareed, feel free to come out of the potus's azz at any time.
Pundit in March: "This will never work!"
Same pundit yesterday: "Like I said back in March, 'This will ... work!' "
dear fareed, I can see you are writing from your point of view. Obama using this strategy does not mean america has adopted it. you Americans are very funny, those libyans you protect are still coming to bite you. And i believe when your economy is broke you will turn back and seek for Africans help to bail you from your creditor (CHINA). never belittle AFRICA they have the material,labour to rule the next generation PEACE
Good job Fareed! Hope your various articles with truthful views may help change the thinking of people. Keep it up.
A new policy would be ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama promised to do 3 years ago and has yet to deliver. So much for Hope and Change! What Hope & Change really meant was "The Same As Bush, Just More Of It".
Apparently, the most vicious insult that Conservatives can think of is to say, "This Democratic President is just as incompetent as the last Republican President. Vote Republican!"
Yehh...send GOP's bosses all our tax dollar through nonbidding contract...wasteful spending of the offence industry aka defence industry...hey, why don't you just donate all our earning to them without waging a war, so at least there won't anyone killed.
Fareed, how does our oil industry get cheap and highly profitable "light and sweet" lybia oil reserve without sending ground troop, and issuing "non=bidding contracts". How do you transfer tax payer money to the rich? GW Bush will laugh at you, you got to be kidding me, wage a war without profit...you stupid...
Wars should not be fought for profit. That would make war into murder for hire. Wars are fought – or should be fought – for justice, to repel an invading enemy, or to rescue the oppressed.
I agree with you 100%, however that is not the reality, my friend...look back at all the wars occured in the past 30 years...
This model is a brilliant success. And Obama's critics never paused to wonder what he was trying to do. Now they can't figure out how to respond now that his policy has worked out, and given us a better model for the future.
Seems like there are many people from the political right who are against our involvement in Libya. Yet many of these same people voted for Bush, who got us into 2 wars that cost hundred of times what Libya cost, cost thousands of American lives, and (especially in the case of Iraq) compromised our national reputation. In this case, Obama worked with others in the international community and helped to achieve a good result at a very low cost, with no American lives lost. As Mr Zakaria argues, this is an excellent model for future interventions. And it doesn't matter whether Obama invented this policy, the fact is he's executing it very well. Seriously people, you can't ask for much better than this. Which leads me to conclude, as others have, that you will probably attack whatever our President does, simply because he's not Republican, not southern, or not white, whatever your main prejudice of choice happens to be.
I am so glad we finally have a president that understands how to walk the walk. Obama really gets it and I think that is why he is was successful in getting Bin Laden and now helping get Gadafi out of power. Look how much money Bush and Cheney wasted on Iraq and Afganistan. They could have done something similar in those two countries and saved most importantly thousands of american lives and secondly alot of money. They did not have the intelligence to figure out the best way to solve these problems but apparently Obama has. Thank you Mr President!
So I guess now that Gaddafi is out of power democracy will spring forth and there will be a Starbucks on every block and shopping malls in every town? This is the Middle East and we just put an entire country in the hands of an unorganized group of rebels with no clear path forward for the future. How can you be so short sighted?
Now, Mr. President, let's send them an invoice which covers the cost of our involvement in getting them their feedom and they can pay us with discounted oil over the next ten years or so....same with Iraq and Kuwait.
We’re a financially broke nation. We can’t even honor our social security commitments to our own people. Let’s go back to the way to the way we were for the 170 years prior to WWII and concern ourselves with our own borders. Get all our troops out of Europe. It’s no longer 1950. Times have changed. Three US states no longer make up the majority of the world’s products. Europe can defend themselves.
Obama makes this past idiot George w bush and his cronies , the Republican party look like like idiots 1billion $$s compared to 3 trillion $$ stolen by Halliburton and Associates ......
The president absolutely handled this situation with a lot savvy. He initially was not wanting to get our country involved in this mess in the first place. When he finally did abdicate, it was on the condition that we would NOT take the lead in the attacks. After the opening phase was complete, he kept his word and we went into a supportive role. Yes, I do call this great leadership. Not like Mr. Bush, who got us into Iraq with an alliance of the " willing ". Most of the countries he asked said hell no.
isn't this a slap in the face of all the countries who have contributed to Iraq and Afghanistan. All for an attempt at political prosperity. CNN should be ashamed of itself.
No it isn't.
A liberal fairy tale with a supposed happy ending. Similar story to Egypt where the peace between Egypt and Israel has now been destabilized by that regime change. Libya will now become a more prominent source of mujahideen to destabilize Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a weapons provider for terrorists.
Good and accurate piece. Of course, nothing will make today's republicans happy. Their single policy now is "being against anything Obama does...even if it's a good move." It's amusing all their double-talk on the Libya issue. At first, "you aren't doing enough!" Then, "OMG, you are doing too much!" And across the board they all predicted failure. Republicans weren't always like this. It's become quite sad. Their principles don't come first anymore, it's just oppose Obama at any cost. Santorum called Obama "indecisive" on Libya. What did he want? Should we have done nothing in which case Ghadaffi would still be in power? Should we have led the operation, giving it the USA stamp and decreasing legitimacy of the rebel movement? Only McCain had it generally correct from the beginning... Republicans used to rally behind national security causes, even when Dems were in power...now it's all politics all the time. Europe should have played a large role, N. Africa is in their hemisphere...we can't keep leading in every hemisphere in the world. It's just not sustainable.
Fareed, An excellent article. I also agree with others who question the legitimacy of the GOP. I could hardly believe that John McCain remains critical of Obama. McCain is self defecating. He continues pushing the traditional kick-ass, me first approach. He demonstrates he lack of understanding and perspective regarding the economics of war and how to leverage the international community and local forces. Obama didn't lead from behind. In fact, he figured out how to get out in front. I am certain that Hilary Clinton also played a key role. My congratulations to the Obama team. They deserve our respect and admiration, and it is about time for McCain to acknowledge this without reservation or further comment. What a moron he has become in his old age. I absolutely despise John McCain.
Conservatism: They don't call it "The Big Con" for nothing.
truth –
Obama is also criticized for allegedly eroding NATO in the effort to oust Libya's Muammar Gadhafi.
"And so, the once-intimidating NATO alliance found itself entangled above Libya's deserts for long months in a 'battle of giants' against a state whose army is sometimes reminiscent of a Jenin street gang from a decade ago," says Walt. "Now, with Gadhafi's rule finally drawing to an end, the president kindly took time off from his vacation to festively declare that the future is in the Libyan people's hands – while local tribes are preparing for the imminent bloodshed and al-Qaida is reinforcing its hold on the country."
Does anyone know what the toll in human life is because of the NATO intervention? The government and the media have never fully disclosed the casualties we have caused through direct bombings and the support of an armed insurrection. I pray Libya will flourish as a democracy in a post-ghaddafi world, And my heart goes out to all those who struggle for the freedoms many of us take for granted... But the question remains, did we prevent a massacre in Benghazi only to purpetrate a wider massacre throughout Libya
Before we engage in too much back-slapping let's not forget this "model of intervention" was denounced by Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russia and other nations. It's doubtful this type of western (mainly) unilateral action will go uncontested in the future. Furthermore, how much "skin in the game" is the US going to have after putting Libya back together over the next 10 + years? Ousting bad guys is like winning the NIT Tip-Off Tourney ... still have to play the season out.
From Page 1 of the Little Red Book of Conservative Propaganda.
1. Non-Conservative leaders must fail.
2. If Non-Conservative leaders succeed, they have failed.
3. If Non-Conservative leaders fail, they have failed.
4. If Non-Conservative leaders propose an idea that might succeed, you must oppose it.
5. If Non-Conservative leaders propose an idea that might fail, you must oppose it.
6. If Non-Conservative leaders do nothing, you must oppose them.
7. If Non-Conservative leaders do anything, you must oppose them.
It's interesting to see all the liberals agreeing with Zakaria and stroking themselves over how great Obama's "new" foreign policy is. Where will he choose to intercede next based on human rights and dignity rather than US security interests.
Conservatism is truly evil, as evidenced by Daveil's comments.
Conservatism is amoral, anti-Christian, and un-American.
Liberalism is evil as evidenced by El Flaco's comments. WOW! That's really pretty easy...
Disposing foriegn leaders has always been easy for the US. It is the chaos that follows the destruction of the old government that is the most costly part of any conflict. I'm optimistic that the Libyan people will be able to build a better future for themselves, but declaring victory now would be exactly the same as declaring victory in Iraq after the deposal of Saddam Hussein. It's a good start, but Libya has a long way to go.
100% agree with this
That's an excellent point. Hopefully, the same model will be used for the reconstruction as was used for the war: the Libyan people do most of the work themselves, with support from the international community.
Aren't you the policy wonk that prematurely called Egypt a success? Why don't you wait a little bit before you call this a success too. And how does it feel, Fareed, to become a walking talking point with as much analysis in your essays as a 12 grade history paper. Your writing lacks insight and clearly injects your political view using isolated examples to prove na ill conceived narrative. Obama-foreign policy = a gorgeous wet dream
All of these critics just proved who was and is the smart one? President Barack Obama and those who joined and thought things out and now seeing it work.
What's worked? I'll believe it's worked when there are peaceful democratic elections and a moderate leader is put into office. Right now all Libya has is a rag-tag government made up of rebels that are barely older than I am.
Seeing what work? A bunch of armed gangs with AK 47's driving the streets of tripoli in Ford station wagons??? Get a life. Obama has no clue what will happen in Lybia now --he has spent billions of dollars we do not have –and for what? Ghadafi was no real threat to US national security and he was able to hold down Al QAEDA in Lybia We have no clue what happens now in that divided country run by competing gangs of kids armed to the teeth.
Russia and CHina were smart to sit on the sidelines - ditto for germany who played a miniscule part and spend pennies compared to Obama's spenidng.....
I The real tragedy, is that the best intelligence communities in the world, the CIA and the Mossad, did not see the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. What other choice did the US have? In Egypt there is a huge Muslim Brotherhood influence, and in Libya, we don't even know what the rebels are made of. If Obama has such a strong foreign policy stand, why don't we have a limited role in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran. Do we only intervene in the name of human rights when America doesn't shed blood and there is a weak central gov't. Or, like in Syria, where the central gov't has enough firepower to suppress and kill its own people, do we look the other way.
Author seems to be ignorant of the fact and neglect the fact that this "war" cost us billions of dollars at a time where we literally have no money left.
Fareed, Fareed, get your facts straight and take off your Obama cheerleading skirt. The US funds 75% of the NATO budget. That means that the US funded this Libya adventure. While the US is spending countless billions on iffy regime change with no well thought out end game for Lybia, Russia and China did not spend 5 cents, electing instead to stay out of this experiment and tend to their own countries and economic challenges. This is what the US should do, and more importantly, it is what the vast majority of Americans want. Obama has no chance of a second term if his response to our economic and unemployment woes is to start wars in other countries...
Sorry, Larry, but your foreign policy is un-American.
When a totalitarian government begins the wholesale slaughter of its citizens, all democracies – and certainly all Christian democracies – have to act.
Your admiration for Russia and China is noted. From the Conservative point of view, those countries have many admirable and enviable qualities.
El Flaco, using those paramters, why has Obama not forged ahead in Syria and Iran then? They are just as bad as Libya in going after their own people. And did you also hail Bush when he went into Iraq, we all know Saddam was ruthless to his own people, did you also cheer him on? Your hyper-partisan cheerleading is what helps to destroy this country. The US had no business going into Libya.
What a joke. The UK has to borrow spy planes from the US to do their role in Libya, Norway already withdrew, France pulled back their carrier as it was badly in need of maintenance, Italy pulled their carrier to save costs, and the dutch are begging the US and allies for ammo as the four planes they had fighting have used up their supplies! Because of a virtual collapse of NATO forces in the last couple weeks, sorties by US planes doubled and were set to go up further to make up the NATO slack. Even the combined forces of NATO could not do what the US could do alone. And the US has had to spend time, money and resource to prop up all aspects of the "burden sharing". But sure, let the liberals paint this as working out OK.
I consider myself a liberal, and I say that those problems should be solved. If NATO members have difficultly with their own forces, then call them out. Continue putting the pressure on them to step up to their responsibilities. It's never going to get any better if the US demonstrates a willingness to go it alone.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. d
Of all the idividuals CNN can muster up, Fareed Zakaria seems to have the handle on and most qualified opinion of any global matter. I think that he should run for president and get the present golf player out of office ASAP. The earthquake we had yesterday was the almighty pointing his finger squarly at Washington, DC to tell the US that he has had it up to his ears with the crap that is going on in this country today!
It's a good thing that this "new era" will come to an end next November. This article is laughable. Fareed, what's it like being in the tank for Obama?
"Shared the burden". OFGS. Get your head out of the sand and actually read up on America's involvement in foreign countries over the past 100 years.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. PERIOD
We haven't really seen this kind of professional intervention since the Gulf War with GHW Bush. He was able to get the Arab states to help attack Iraq, and got Israel to wait. Bush II's foreign policy efforts are akin to a bully grabbing what he wants. Finally we are getting back to actual diplomacy! Of course, all the current crop of Republicans are against it, if President Obama might get any credit at all.
Right on!
This is a great article and I agree with every part of it. But I have one small comment:
You said, "Now there are critics of this approach on both the right and left." Then you follow up by commenting on the critics of the left and what they are saying. You never identified who the critics from the right are or what they are saying. You talked about those who want to keep the old world order (America on top) but don't identify them as being on the right.
This is a common theme among journalists now. In an effort to appear even-handed, the journalist must make criticisms of the left but give the right a freer hand. That's why the Republicans did not get the absolute condemnation that they should have for the way they conducted themselves during the recent debt limit bill fiasco. They couldn't stand for President Obama to get a "victory" by coming to an agreement about the budget and debt limit so they held the American economy and the world economy hostage so that it would appear that President Obama lacked the leadership to come to an agreement.
This shouldn't cost us a dime. Libya has oil. It is not our burden to rebuild their country. We helped them liberate it from a madman. It is now their job to rebuild their own country.
I dont see how taking a back seat to the arab league is showing any leadership on obowmas part.....fareed, get your lips off of obowmas ars...
And you are an idiot! The citizens of a country, and the leadership of an area, should take the lead in change. We seriously overstepped when our country invaded Iraq, and will pay for that for a long time.
A Conservative president invaded two nations by mistake (first time in world history).
We invaded Iraq to find WMDs but they weren’t there, so every American who died in Iraq died for nothing.
We invaded Afghanistan to find bin Laden, but he wasn’t there. He was sipping latte and watching soccer on his big screen TV in Pakistan. So, the Americans who died in Afghanistan died for nothing.
So you Conservatives have to give Obama at least this much ... At least Ghadafi was actually in the country we were bombing.
Sadam Hussein killed thousands more of his own people than Qaddafi ever did.
Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranians with gas the US provided. Then we resupplied him with new ones. The US had no problems with Saddam killing his own people.
That is not why we invaded Iraq. I remember those days after 9/11 very well. We invaded Iraq to capture "20,000 TONS of bioactive and radioactive weapons grade material."
How many WMDs did we find? ZERO!
MASSIVE oversimplification.
Trust me, NONE of my brothers and sisters in arms "died for nothing" but you probably just wouldn't understand that. Go back to class, we got this.
The U.S. Consti2tion will no longer be censored by cointelpro globalist hacks like zakaria! The MSM has become nothing but a thinly veiled propaganda machine involved in shaping opinion rather than reporting facts. How many times did they tell us that Ghadaffi's sons had been captured? These dinosaurs will soon become extinct.
And this is the way to do it!
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
Fareed this is one of the best written, most concrete and viable articles I've ever read. You hit the nail right on the head Fareed. But the reality is that the GOP and their Tea will never give president Obama any credit at all for his sound judgement, his intellect and tremendous leadership in getting the world community on board to intervene in Libya. And Fareed, you hit it right on the head when you describe how at the very beginning of the Libyan crisis, the GOP criticized the president's leadership arguing that he was dragging his feet while civilians were being killed by the Ghadaffi regime only to reverse their position and accused the president of rushing to war. Then there are the likes of Dennis Kunick, a supposedly Democratic congressman from John Boehner home state of Ohio crossing party lines to entertain the notion of impeaching of our president. How absurd, pathetic and outrageous.
But Fareed what has been evident to the American people from day one is that these critics in Washington will never admit it but the reality is that the opposition and criticism of this administration's policies have nothing to do with the policies themselves but more to do with the color of the president's skin. I just hope the GOP and their Tea Party and people like Dennis Kunich would admit the obvious. After all, they cannot hide their true colors.
But I'm grateful and honored and pleased that president Obama is my president and president of the United States because since he has taken office, America has once again forged ahead as the leader of the free and democratic world. Our credibility and trust and image around the world has improved significantly and we are slowly but surely surging ahead of the problems that George W. Bush and the GOP left the American people to deal with.
And unfortunately, like with all the other issues that this president has dealth with, it is sad to say that the GOP and their colorful Tea Party is yet to give president Obama credit for sending our Navy Seals off to kill Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. But Fareed, thanks a million for your well articulated article of the president's handling of the Libyan crisis. Fareed, America need more people like you, that is people who can make an independent judgement and assessment of the issues in a fair, objective and precise manner. Thank you Fareed Zakaria.
Huh? Sec of State is the one who put this effort together, and Pres Obama is the first sitting president who has taken credit for an operation conducted by our military forces. The Seal/Bin Laden 'show' put on by the administration really sticks in my crawl because their disclosure of operationa (to include the New Yorker article) has put my son-in-law (a seal) and his family in danger. He and his admin should have kept their mouths shut wrt killing OBL>
Coalition of the willing has been a common theme for quite awhile now – to include efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan...where have you been? Despite this coalition of the willing – the US is still pulling the most effort.
What do you think we'll do with Syria – which looking at their and Assad's track record – have been much more dastardly than Libya has ....
Obama will do nothing in Syria unless he is convinced that it will succeed, like this Libyan operation has apparently succeeded.
President McCain would have had 50,000 American troops on the ground in Libya and Syria by now, and Vice President Palin would be talking about "how proud we are of our soldiers in Liberia."
Fareed – why don't you just marry Obama... we all know your in love with him. Maybe after two months of marital bliss the rose color glasses will ware off.
"Wear" off.
Hey Zakeria, he is the UK's Chamberlin of the the 30's. His policies are a disaster, and so is this one. If you thought that Gadaffi was bad, and he was, wait until you see what is coming. Just look at Egypt. Obama is clueless and the sooner you / we figure that out the better off we will be.....
Obama lied. He promised he would not go after medical marijuana users and dispenseries before he was president. Then did the opposite when he was elected. Liar.
I don't think the Obama Administration has a drug policy. Changing our drug laws is politcally impossible due to the willingness of Conservatives to make it an election issue.
Other nations shared the burden?? Your joking right? NATO is 80% funded and 60% staffed by the USA. 70% of all combat missions in Libya and the ordnance expended were accomplished by USA. We shared the Libya mission with ourselves
If those numbers are right (I wouldn't be surprised), then that seems like an important point that the US administration should be pushing. Time for a more balanced partnership in NATO between the US and Europe. Shared responsibility, shared decision making. A less US-centric organization should be better for everyone.
Fareed Zakaria is once again predicting the future of Obama's actions. It will mean nothing when the voters go to the polls to vote him out of office. All that matters is jobs, debt, and economic recovery.
Zakaria is rapidly becoming dangerous...this article reads like a manifesto for world conquest. Trumpeting "local legitimacy" begins the slide down the slippery slope....What's next?...The "intervention" into sovereign countries if there is a rebel group of any kind? Who's next?....Britain? Nah! Greece? Nah! Let me think...where is there a country with a rebel group to justify intervention?....With plenty of neighbors to provide "local legitimacy"?....Where could it be Fareed?....Could it be?.........ISRAEL!
Many issues in the real world are a "slippery slope". Complaining about it is often the first sign that you've turned off your brain and are about to make some claims that appeal to fear and uncertainty.
So from now on if anything in the world eventually works itself out without much or any help from America it will be declared a victory for Obama. In that case, decreasing poverty in China is a victory for Obama, India's economic growth is a victory for Obama, the Chileans' success retrieving the trapped miners was a victory for Obama. Obama also has domestic victories: nobody got killed in the recent earthquake in Virginia! Good going Obama, yes we can!!!!
What a joke of an article, how much have we spent in tax dollors? Share that burden.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
Fareed, please run for president. Every week you provide poignant articles and discussions that clearly illustrate you understand today's world. Please run for president. As a fellow Yale alum I greatly admire you.
Fareed Zakaria/Jon Huntsman 2012!
Really?
Obama didn't invent the idea of building consensus before going to war. Both Bush's did that with Iraq, building coalition armies to defeat Sadaam. And of course, you crowing about a victory that hasn't happened yet. There is still fighting in the streets of Tripoli, Quadaffi is still at large... where is the victory? And when/if Quadaffi falls and there is still fighting in the streets of Tripoli, starvation and food riots in the country, mass looting and other criminal offenses against persons and property going on without any law... where will be the victory? Your article does nothing but demonstrate your own ignorance.
Let us not confuse the brilliance with which Bush Sr. managed the Gulf War with the utter stupidity of his draft-dodging son. We went in, we kicked butt, we left. Soldiers were actually safer in Kuwait than they would have been back home driving on the freeway. Bush Sr. was a genuine war hero in WWII. His son was an awol helicopter pilot in Texas.
You're just a W hater. We went to Iraq with BROAD support.
Isn't it a bit early to be declaring the Libya operation a success? Isn't it a bit like saying the war in Iraq was a success the day that Baghdad fell? Since we've never tried "leading from behind" we have no idea how much good will the rebels will be affording NATO. Nor do we know what kind of country they intend to create. And since we were only minimally involved in their success, I'm guessing that they won't be taking too much of our advice.
Remember the story of farmer's son and the wise man's response ... "We shall see."
Most of these points applied to Afghanistan and Iraq as well. It seems to me the biggest difference is that we didn't put boots on the ground (the loudest voices demanding troops were Dems, as I recall, and at the time I suspected this was a political trap). If we had only dropped bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq we wouldn't have 10's of thousands of troops deployed there 10 years later.
Lets put all the cards on the table. American dominance for the sake of it. Dead soldiers and civilians are soon forgotten, but glory of domination lives forever. Name 5 dictators...now name five dead american soldiers...which list is easier to make. you see my point. People will marvel at American military and political dominance in the future. Give the american people a share in the plunder!!!
All propaganda depending on the day of the week.
Obama is too political for me with a mindset I do not understand; not to be trusted.
Nonesense. The Euros pushed us into Libya for their own economic self interest. They balked in Iraq for the same reasons. We went in only half-heartedly in Libya because it is strageically insignificant, whereas we went whole hog into Iraq because it is the keystone nation in the middle east. Fareed has jumped the shark for me... he's become nothing more now that an Obama cheerleader.
What a concept! Shared burden... too bad Conservatives have yet to understand that.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
This article is poorly thought out. Europe is in Libya because it is easy and because of direct national interests. It is easy because of the location of bases. No overfly permission is needed to get to Libya from Europe. National interests include historic ties, business relationships, and oil contracts.
And finally, the US has very little interest in Libya. They had shaped up enough on the world stage to not be viewed as a threat to our national security.
Now after reading that, how can you draw a conclusion that this is a new US policy direction? You can't.
Libya may be nothing but a "rat hole" to some of you, but this is a globally connected reality, with subtle channels connecting all things. By supporting democracy and freedom, in a cost-effective, cooperative, and ideologically sound way, we are strengthening the world, and strengthening our country in a way that only appears to people who have the ability to see the whole picture. A more stable Middle East means a more stable world and less violent extremism. That means less of a need for a giant, absurdly priced military. This isn't a "you break it, you bought it" situation like Iraq and Afghanistan, hence the mention of indigenous legitimacy. I invite you to try to look at the big picture and toss off the soundbites like "America is broke". Its just not true
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Fareed.....but it is unfortunate that he doesn't understand the importance of adhering to international law. It is wicked to pretend that you don't have "boots" on the ground when in fact the US does have boots on the ground in Libya. (Hired X military experts are really just the same thing. Everyone also knows that this attack on Libya was to create Regime change. Canada's prime minister mentioned that when he came out of an early meeting )
How can we create a safe world for our children when our leaders believe that they can ignore international law when it suits them? I wish that Mr. Fareed would also understand this idea.
I guess the idiot who wrote this crap has a short memory span. I guess he is fine with obozo not getting approval from congress before going to war with Libya. I guess this idiot has no problems if the muslim brotherhood governs Libya.
Hmm... does all this crowing remind anyone else of Bush's "victory" speech on the aircraft carrier? Of course most of the crowing this time comes from the media
They are not similar at all.
Apparently the most vicious thing a Conservative can say about a non-Conservative is that he is just as stupid and incompetent as the last Republican President.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
Is it possible for a democrat to speak or write a sentence without using derogatory remarks, such as "jerk, stupid, incompetent, idiot, dumb, retarded, fool, etc)??? Didn't think so.....
Now let's see – Bachman wishes Happy Birthday to Elvis on the day he died; Obama makes a considered decision to let NATO take the lead in the Libyan civil war – who is it that seems to be on top of things? Just wondering. LOL
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
Oh, I dunno'. How many states in the union? Which living Soldier did the President present a Medal of Honor to? In which YEAR did the President visit Westminster Abbey? Is Austrian a language? How old is the President's daughter? When's the last time he bowled in the Special Olympics?
Well lets see if it happened to Obama I wonder what her would say. Dictator of the freaken world. Let him stick his nose in Irans issues and he himself would be the same. An arrogant person who loves to tell the world what to do.
Don't you just hate it when he slam dunks another 2 points, despite all of the conservative opposition??? Despite all the whiners saying he isn't leading? Despite all the posts saying that he hasn't done anything? Despite ... well...don't you just hate it?
The article above and CNN live interviews supporting the premise are certainly well thought out and well reasoned. Parts are even brilliant. My deep concern is that while PhDs are weighing responses and brilliant men are pondering options – a cunning snake like Gadhafi has yet to be captured or killed. Politics aside, the threat to the US is real and severe with Gadhafi loose and WMD available to him.
US and International journalist also remain captive and available as pawns. At this time the end game is not yet over.
Having a "Globalist" perspective has worked thus far in this instance, but a wounded animal like Gadhafi is just the sort of loose cannon to define chaos theory and unintended results.
NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA. NO US MONEY FOR LIBYA.
Fareed has his lips firmly wrapped around Mr Obama's schlong. Reminds me of the Bush aircraft carrier victory speech. .... But more importantly isn't this Arab Spring a vindication of the Bush Strategy and Plan to seed the Middle East with Democracy???????????????????? Fareed you tool. Comments?
Robert, Oh where to begin. Bush invaded a country, many boots on the ground at great loss of American life, many injured and in fact brought on (by our actions) an insurgency. If you're not smart enough to figure it out, I'll explain the difference. Here there was a group of citizen type soldiers (dentists, engineers, etc. ) fighting with no help against a dictator stating he'd kill everyone rather than give up power. We had no American loss of life, but we did use massive fire power to eliminate Gadhifi's air force and air defense. Is that simple enough for you?
Nice Liberal Article.... I wonder how much Obama and the DNC pays CNN. When I was in Greece, I turned the TV to CNN International, they were playing the Comedy Central's the Daily Show. Tunneled Visioned Liberal Comedians must be their reporters.
Making friends with a new government is better than making enemies, as long as it is "affordable". It may help to discourage them from sending terrorism over here. But we should not have the illusion that they will ever be good friends or adopt our style of democracy. When the dust settles, it will come down to the Muslim Brotherhood agenda of world domination of their religion. They will accept our help as long as it suits their purpose – and come against us both openly and covertly when they have the opportunity. The best we can do is have good intelligence in place and be ready to neutralize them when it becomes necessary. Which it will.
U.S. foreign policy will never permit real Democracy in any Middle Eastern nations. See, "The West Is Terrified of Arabic Democracies", Noam Chomsky interviewed by Qantara, June 17, 2011. The gargantuan strategic significance of Middle Eastern oil supplies under the control of a Democratic Arab population who, polls show, overwhelmingly believe that the U.S. is their primary threat, would bring the U.S. and other western powers to their feet, as it were. The west will not permit this, and will do what it has always done.
A small excerpt from the aforementioned interview:
Noam Chomsky: “The Arab-Islamic world has a long history of democracy. It's regularly crushed by western force. In 1953 Iran had a parliamentary system, the US and Britain overthrew it. There was a revolution in Iraq in 1958, we don't know where it would have gone, but it could have been democratic. The US basically organized a coup.
In internal discussions in 1958, which have since been declassified, President Eisenhower spoke about a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. Not from the governments, but from the people. The National Security Council's top planning body produced a memorandum - you can pick it up on the web now - in which they explained it. They said that the perception in the Arab world is that the United States blocks democracy and development and supports harsh dictators and we do it to get control over their oil. The memorandum said, this perception is more or less accurate and that's basically what we ought to be doing.”
Qantara: “That means that western democracies prevented the emergence of democracies in the Arab world?”
Noam Chomsky: “I won't run through the details, but yes, it continues that way to the present. There are constant democratic uprisings. They are crushed by the dictators we - mainly the US, Britain, and France - support. So sure, there is no democracy because you crush it all. You could have said the same about Latin America: a long series of dictators, brutal murderers. As long as the US controls the hemisphere, or Europe before it, there is no democracy, because it gets crushed.”
OMG – How full of S*** can you get "because President Obama made sure other nations shared the burden."
Yea right – he was right behind me twisting my arm to get involved. He didn't ensure didly squat – he doesn't know how to ensure anything.
France and Italy were some of the first to get involved – was he twisting their arms? I don't think so. Was he twisting Canada's arm to get involved? Probably not.
Let's see if he can make others "Share the Burden" like taking out someone like Robert Mugabee – another dictator – this one in Africa. He won't be inclined to do so because there's no oil there. But this other dictator on the same continent also needs to go. Burma too!
It is about time we tell the rest of the world: If you want to bring freedom to oppressed countries like we do, you will have to take the lead and cover the cost once in a while. "Coalitions" formed by arm bending (Iraq) just are not going to cut it anymore. Bravo to president Obama on this one.
This is a very wealthy nation, without the previous boss..... Will we get reimbersed for any of this?
It would not suprise me if Obama eats aborted fetuses to keep his bloodlust in high fever for more murder and mayhem.
Yes – high gas prices for the next 20 years
Obama got Osama! Obama got Osama. Read all about it... Libyans embrace victory, Obama got Ghadaddi! Libyans embrace victory, Obama got Ghadaffi! Obama's the Bomb! Best president Ever!
I see CNN's affair with Obama and socialism continues. What a shame that they continue to destroy the country...
What a shame that you have no specifics, just what appears to be uninformed opinion. Did you know that in the last months of George W Bush's term we we loosing 750K jobs a month? Talk about destroying the country.
So do the UN and NATO value Libyan civilian lives higher than those of Syrian civilians? This new policy must be making the the freedom seeking people of the world feel all warm and fuzzy.
What's up with all the fighting over whether we should have helped Libya or not? That's not what the article is about, it's about a possible productive and cost-effective change in American foreign policy. No liberal Obama praising. The article even goes as far as saying that it was completely fine that Obama/America didn't get direct credit in the minds of the Libyan people. I feel like some of you didn't even read the article...
Let's reaclal General Powell advise to President Bush : You break it, you own it. This time, the US did not break Libya; the US did not own it. Imagine a US intervention and the cost of a post Khadaffi Libya. President Obama; Thank you for being smart.
Mr. Zakaria you talked almost ravingly about Gadhafi just a couple of days ago when you said "Unlike Hosni Mubarak, Gaddaffi is a soldier and will die a MARTYR and NOT run away"!
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/22/fareed-zakaria-gadhafi-will-not-surrender/
WHERE's Mr.GADHAFI Mr. ZAKARIA?
And, BTW, why do you have to use the word "MARTYR" for Mr.Gadhafi Mr. Zakaria? Is it b'coz unlike Hosni Mubarak who was pro-US (& almost pro-Israel) you were unhappy to see an anti-Western Muslim dictator vanish in the face of US & Western onslaught (in line with your well known Pro-Islamic, Ant-Semite agenda!)?
How can you think that Zakaria was praising Ghadafi? The Muslims who die a martyr's death are idiots. They are dying for nothing. Ghadafi is a not-very-smart thug whose regime is awash with the blood of good Muslims who wanted nothing but a good life for themselves and their families.
Obama entered office with a huge mess on his hands. He has made some mistakes but the wins are pretty good too. I haven't seen any president do as much as he has in the first 3 years. He's smart, but he's also bold. The alliance with India, the slap to Pakistan when he got Osama bin Laden, the support needed for Libya without it all being about the Americans, and the smartest choice of all–extending unemployment for the millions who were close to losing everything. I would now like to see a bill to make it illegal for companies to ignore unemployed applicants–they are advertising, "unemployed need not applied." It's wrong. Regarding Libya–it's not the first of the arabic dictatorships to fall and they will have support from all around them as well as the big economic players.
NIce spin by the media to try to make it out like Obama has stood up for the US in making other countries carry some of the burden. They know that Obama throws the US under the bus at every opportunity, and that the voters see it, so they are trying to paint it like Obama is standing up for the US. Not buying it CNN. Obama's approval is at an abysmal 38%. Lowest of his presidency. Support among whites is 30%. He doesn't stand a chance. This bag of goods you all in the media sold the public on Obama is showing you guys to be fools and beyond biased.
"They know that Obama throws the US under the bus at every opportunity"
How about some examples Jason?
So Obama is evil and out to destroy America in your eyes, and we're the blind ones?
I feel like you don't understand that all debates morph into a left/right bash fest...
Actually the President didn't make sure other carried some of the burden. Other countries were forced into action becuase of US inaction and the inability of the President to make a clear and consise decision.
umm..the way it happened was France went in alone – bombing Libya, making Obama look weak, so Obama jumped on the bandwagon to save face (votes). Obama didn't lead this, plan this, or had anything to do with most of this. Nice try though.
You Conservatives are really stammering out a lot of excuses about why this success CANNOT be a success because Obama would get credit for it.
How about this one: "The truth is that Ghadafi has conquered the entire nation and has destroyed ALL NATO forces, including over two million US soldiers, BUT the Liberal Media refuses to print that terrible news because it would make Obama look bad!"
I think that will fly with most Conservatives.
Obama = 10 ; Republicans (includes presidential wannabes) = ZERO
With the national unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, OBAMA = Fail!
The unemployment rate was rising fast BEFORE Obama was elected–and the housing market had already crashed. How can you be unaware of that?
Great article! Great points! It's always great to go back and see how politicians felt originally and then see the results! America doesn't have to be the one leading our wars to be strong. We can have others share the responsibility and the costs and while doing so we'll gain popularity amount the world. We need allies people!
the national unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, Screw Libia
First, I can't understand why CNN is so enamored with Zakaria as an analyst. The front page is quickly becoming less actual news and more a Zakaria blog. Second, comparing the financial costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with LIbya is absurd. To claim this as a "model" is nonsense. There is nothing about the approach taken in Libya that would have been remotely successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The dynamics are not even close.
Fareed Zakaria, you're so up Obama ass, that you just might find some oil. What a sorry article, really brings out your one sided pov and mediocracy.
You've convinced me.... that you have nothing to say, just insults and hate.
Wow! This is CNN/s front story???!!! Fareed Zakaria, a doctor, defending Obama (more like cheerleading for him) on foreign policy. Next, CNN will have Dear Abby giving a front page story: "New Era In Quantum Physics". This deserves the "Give Me A Break" award.
Had this been Bush in the exact same position the caption would have read "Failed Foreign Policy: Libya Victiory Despite Leading From Behind". This has been Obama's strategy since he's been in politics. He voted "Present" nearly 130 times while in Illinois. He was criticized for being absent on the healthcare debate (when Democrats couldn't get it together despite having the supermajority). He was absent on the debt ceiling debate and he's being criticized for being absent on the jobs issue.
Why? So, that when it goes bad you can point the finger (like he’s doing on the campaign trail) and if it goes good you can step in and take the credit.
The Obama admin has been a string of one political blunder after another. He’s shown his inexperience by getting outmaneuvered in just about every political topic in Congress. And what did we expect from a freshman Senator with no executive experience? And you can thank the media outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, & MSNBC for vetting Sarah Palin 100 times more rigorously for the vice-presidential position than Obama for President! Thanks guys.
You don't like Obama. Fine. I can respect that. It's willful ignorance and making things up that is just plain uncalled for.
You must get all your facts from FOX. They're all either wrong or taken so badly out of context as to be purposely misleading. Obama voted 130 out of 4000 times in Illinois–a small amount and common when in the minority party to avoid "traps" set by the majority. He led regular, televised bipartisan meetings on the healthcare debate–I watched some–and tried to broker many (bigger) deals on the debt ceiling debate–all of which Boehner threw back in his face. (When the GOP final agreed on a deal it was Boehner who said he got 98% of what he wanted in the end–right before the downgrade. Remember?). Oh yeah. The Dems never had a supermajority. That word has a real definition. Please look it up!
If this had happened for Iraq, it would NOT be such an albatross for Bush. Iraq was FUBAR from day one and it still is. Go tell one of the thousands of widowed women, fatherless children, and childless parents that war was worth it. Libya has ZERO Am casualties, cost less than $1B, we're done in 6 months, and the costs of cleaning up are not on our bill. That's a win, but any standard.
Enjoy your crumbling country America while the earth trembles as Obama reads his teleprompter.
Wow. You really nailed it. That teleprompter is the cause of all our trouble!!! Get a grip.
Our Allies have helped and shared the burden in Afghanistan and Iraq how did he miss that.
I don't think he missed that at all. What percentage of the cost in dollars and man power have our allies supplied in Iraq and Afghanistan and what precentage have the supplied in Libya? I think that the US has carried most of the burden for the first two, not so much for Libya and it doesn't look like we'll be stuck there for 10 years either.
I don't want to strengthen the world at the cost of destroying our own country. I don't give a damn what goes on in the Middle East/Africa/Europe etc. and I don't want to pay for it with our lives and our money. Who cares if they have democracy? I certainly don't. I don't care what happens in Libya, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan or any of them. I don't wish them harm, but I don't believe we can, or should, solve their problems for them. It's none of our business and it should remain that way. Keep a good business relationship and stay out of foreign conflicts. Why do we have the right to go on the offensive? It's B.S. and I'm not going to pretend to support it anymore.
(I respect all of your opinions and am just giving you mine. I don't hate anyone or have an agenda. Take it or leave it. It's just another point of view)
So let's put a silencer on "the shot heard 'round the world?" How patriotic.
Thomas Soldier, you're not giving your oppinion. Then what was your diatribe about?
Do you not understand than Ghadaffi was recruiting people from all over Africa and the Middle-East to work against America's freedom?
Read and learn. Open your mind. Think outside the box. Don't be so selfish.
BTW, you don't support this? Are you paying taxes?
Yeah! Suck on that Bachman/Palin knuckleheads!
thats nice they have changed governments and everything.. however.. I still voted for obama because he said he would get us out of wars.. Yet only got us spending money on "additional" un needed wars.. like THIS ONE.
I dont care if they won or lost.. im not voting for Obama again because he freaking spent 1 billion dollars on this BS.
You didn't vote for Obama last time and you won't vote for him next time.
Really, Dave? Obama has lost your vote over this? I have the opposite view. This is one of the few things Obama's administration has done of which I actually approve. The costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were begun by the previous administration at great cost in both money and the lives of our young soldiers. Obama has been trying to get us out of those theaters. In the case of Libya, he pretty much demanded that others take the fore in both costs and human resources. Isn't that a better policy than the one that got us into the other much more costly conflicts?
There is no new era in foreign policy, they , the govt, will do as they wish without our consent anyway so whats new about that. Ask Americans about foreign policy and they will probably say it is time to take care of things here at home instead of wanting to get involved in the mideast ever again. But you see, we have no say so about foreign policy , it gets shoved down our throats no matter what we desire.
You're right, jeffbo, we need to concentrate more resources on domestic problems, but we cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world. We're all on this planet, aren't we? What happens in the Middle East is important.
Here's an analogy. I know many people who feel that they should not have to pay for the upkeep or improvement of our public schools since they do not have children themselves. But when illiterate kids are getting high school diplomas, then jobs working in retail or service industries, the quality of those services definitely suffers, and we all feel the effects.
So in the last 3 years we've bailed out the automotive companies, the financial companies (god knows why on that one), and now the people of Libya.
We made a handsome profit on the first two bail-outs you mentioned.
Um, we actually lost money (but saved jobs) on the auto bailout according to Tim Geithner, but we did make money on TARP (which was signed by George Bush) according to CNN Money.
Kind of like how Bush Sr. organized Gulf War 1, no? Fareed Zakaria is simply an Obama fan. The "New Era" is no such thing.
No, not like it at all. Bush Sr. invaded Kuwait. Obama did not invade Libya. You see, invading a country and not invading a country are two different things.
Let us pause to praise Bush Sr. – a genuine war hero unlike his draft-dodging son.He went in, he won, he got out.
You can count me out of that "pause to praise" El Flaco. Read a little further back into history. Bush Sr., as head of the CIA, was instrumental in getting Manuel Noriega onto the "payroll". Later, as President, Bush Sr. spent many millions of our tax dollars removing the SOB from the very seat of power into which he had put him. That's just ONE example of the policies of your "genuine war hero."
Here is a foreign policy the US should take up:
Bring ALL US troops back to the USA have them on gaurd of all boards and let them shoot anyone trying to come in that does not have proper paperwork. This way we don't have to spend billions of dollars on fixing up countries that we are at war with.
Then who will buy all the useless junk we manufacturer?
Zakaria's devotion to Obama should be the subject of a "Belief Blog" story.
Good Policy is neither owned by Democrats or Republicans. The policy of overwhelming intervention whether by a Democratic administration (Vietnam) or a Republican (Iraq) is and has been a general faliure, too costly in lives and treasure. At the same time, the policy of isolation would be destabilizing to the world. We cannot ignore events, hide our heads in the sand. Obama merely hit upon what any good, competent administration would do. Let us hope that any Democratic or Republican administration in the future would also think and act like this.
There is a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan versus Vietnam.
There were no WMDs in Iraq and bin Laden was not in Afghanistan.
There actually WERE Communists in Vietnam.
If Bush Jr. had been in charge of the Trojan War, he would have invaded China and spent ten years looking for Helen there.
There are actually "communists" everywhere, so that's no reason to waste a country. Vietnam was American cowardice and incompetence writ large.
I opposed the Vietnam war too, back then. All I'm saying is that at least Johnson invaded the right country.
This is the centerline position required in a global economy and global communication world. Too bad so many people can't see this.
Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi was a Libyan pretty sure that the 270 families and freinds of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 could care less about the trials and tribulations of the Libyan people. When a country hates another people so much that they kill innocent people why then do we care. I do recall that Obama did say that before he committed troops to military action that he would exhaust all diplomatic options first, well we can now see that is a lie. He was like George Custer leading the charge into another disaster. We have deposed another so called tyrant but who is replacing the current tyrant, Muammar Gaddafi siezed power in 1959 in a military coup, I see no difference in this we are assisting a group of rebels to take over a country. Perhaps we should have just left them alone and let the Libyans work or fight this out themselves. Now we get to pay to put the country back together. More financial burden for the American people.
Mission Accomplished!
Yes and what a marvelous new era it is. We still do a majority of the work and take orders from someone else.
Wow.....what a sycophant.
I guess he doesn't remember the coalition used free Kuwait.
And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were over a long time ago for a lot less money than he lists. It is the occupations after those wars that is costing us so much. An Libya will need us and our money to pull out of this. Come back and talk about costs ten years from now to make a fair comparison.
Nope, the "war" in Iraq wasn't "over" until well after idiot Bush left office, and Obama is the one who finally got Bin Laden, instead of the waste that was Bush's Iraq. Now Obama has helped liberate Libya as well.
Looks like Obama 3, Bush and his idiot supporters zero...but then America already knew the right was a big fat zero.
And why does this article deserve to be the headline? Isn't there something more news worthy than Zakaria praising Obama some more?
It's a CNN newsroom entertainment conspiracy to ruffle the feathers of people like you to come out in hoards ... pounding your keyboards ... and getting in your seemingly indifference or opposition.
Bet Faux isn't making quite the ado of this as other network stations. Bet Faux is working heavily on discrediting our President Obama in the name of Faux patriotism.
Its not "A new era in U.S. foreign policy", its the dummy in the white house doing what congress said was the right way.
You mean the same Congress that first chastised him for not doing enough, then reprimanded him for doing something, then threatened to censure him for not seeking Congressional support? That Congress??
MG, are you high? Congress was tearing Obama a new one and calling for impeachment over his actions in the Libyan conflict. It was Obama's policy alone that kept our involvement to a minimum. Why shouldn't Europe take most of the credit and bear most of the cost of helping the Libyan rebels? The French get much of their oil from North Africa, as does most of Europe. We don't. It was an equitable arrangement by all accounts.
CNN always carrying water for obama.
Wow, how can you not be embarrased by these postings. Republicans out there turn everything into a presidential bashing even this! Wake up America (mainly Republicans), what is happening in Libya would have happened in Iraq if you didn't send in your military. But instead you collectively destroyed thousands of your own families lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families lives all for the sake of your collective ego and greed.
You just don't get it and I'm convinced never will...
I think the one who doesn't get it is Mr. Canuck.
If we are going to criticize the GOP for the flip-floppy nature of the vast majority of their party (let's not forget Ron Paul was consistent in his stance, whether you agree with him or not), then it's only fair to point out that the vast majority of Democrats were in favor of going into Iraq until election season came around. Don't pretend only one political party plays political games.
So what makes Mr. Zakaria the go to person for all things White House and Obama? Is this guy even an American Citizen?
Gee, Michelle, why don't you and the rest of the geniuses in the Tea Party waste some time and try to track down his birth certificate, too.
We know, "Obama" and "Zakaria" don't sound like the names white people have. We get it. The TP is racist. Are you?
Michelle, your last name wouldn't be Bachmann, would it? You sound just like that nincompoop.
Are you really comparing the US strategy towards Iraq vs Libya? The comparison to our involvement is mind blowing. Not only are we talking about two completely different situations, our ability to be involved in Iraq the same way we were involved with Libya shows a great lack of understanding for both. To compare these two in this way completely disregards history.
True. We should not have gotten more involved in Iraq. It was contained, we weren't attacked, no rebels were clamoring for our help at that time, and we didn't need to do more.
Oh yes sorry, yes there was a major difference in the Bush's strategy between the two countries...Iraq has one of the highest oil supplies in the world and Libya is only 2% of world production. Sorry my mistake...greed, greed, greed...
Moral of the story. America cannot lead a team and win a war!!
Yes this strategy is a great deal better than counterfeiting of evidence, rushing off to war(S) without the proper body armor for the troops, ignoring the Pentagons initial warning before declaring war and doing photo ops underneath a sign that says Mission Accomplished. Ignore McCains pose that Obama handled this all wrong. McLame may have been shot down during the Nam conflict which for alot of sheeple gives him some cred as a military strategist but truth be told he also crashed his jet 3 times due to pilot error. Youre only alowed 3x, Mcshame had a total of 4. The current GOP brag they know how to win a war but they dont, Obama knows how to and says nothing, he just does it. The GOP dont have the cajones Palin says they do, not unless shes actually seen something the rest of us havent .DOH!!
Well, we just shouldn't have done a single thing in/around Libya, so Obama failed, again.
DemocrapsAndRepugnicansSuck, you know what they say about oppinions....
OK Fareed, you've earned your salary from the Obama administration.
Exactly! It's amusing to see CNN masquerading as a "news" organization when they give front-page access to a partisan sycophant writing unfailing praise hymns to the Anointed One. It reminds me less of actual journalism that tries to uncover some facts here and there, and more like the verbal vomit my parents had to deal with in communist Hungary.
And who's paying the salaries of the entire FOX network staff?
There are many people who agree with some of the policies of our current presidential administration. Some of those people happen to be journalists. There's no reason to believe that those journalists are being paid by the administration (just like there's no reason to assume that you're being paid to post negative opinions on CNN). So instead of attempting to smear Mr. Zakaria's repuration with a weak conspiracy theory, why don't you just say, "Respectfully, I disagree. Here's why..." and keep it civil?
Oh Spacial please don't be a drama queen. America is far from crumbling. Geez!!!!!!!!!! I love how the world is all of a sudden coming to an end. Sure we need to get people back to work and protect retirees who paid into the system for 25 or 30 years. I believe in the end America will do just that. But it is scary times to be a retiree. It feels like the world does not hear you. I spent 30 years working. Now I'm old and well thats me. But I have always believed that America's demise is greatly exagerated. We shall see though. Good Day, Joe.
I agree with you Joe, but I have to ask: only 30 years? Did you get a late start or did you take early retirement? I've been paying taxes, including SS and Medicare, for 43 years and counting.
Will Libya (and other Arab countries) change to pro-western democracy? Well, Fareed, answer two questions first: a) Will they continue to Islamic states? b) Will they accept Israel?
Yep! to the first question. Nope! to the second.
Wow, the people who endlessly criticized Obama on Libya are looking like even bigger buffoons this morning.
I just wanna know at what point in this country's history has aiding terrorists become acceptable. The rebels, by our definition, are clearly terrorists.
That was the biggest nonsense I have read today.
This message is for gimmeabreak and all those who follow his stereotypical mentality. There are millions of us libeals who have, and are still fighting our country's wars. You have absolutely zero right to question our patriotism.
The Reply button is there for a reason...
Hi,
I'm writing outside of the USA.
Mr FZ made a very interresting analysis of the situation (Afghanistan & Iraq VS Lybia cost operation) and the Obama 's Lybian policy.
In the begining, US president was just watching but decided to interven when Ghaddafi start to use the military and bomb the Lybian people to stop the uprising against his regime. For Obama, having to deal already with two wars, it's not easy to take that decision.
The question is: Was the Obama approach was the good one or not. Is it serve the american interest.
I Think YES.
I can see that this president is surronded by a very intellectual advisers. Just think about Mr Obama's leadership in the killing of Ben Laden.
America have a great president now but some people still dont realize it.
You are so right...
I definitely agree with writer about the new model. What U.S done in Afghanistan and Iraq were utterly wrong. It imposed astronomical expenses to this country which could be shared among its alliances with brilliant results.
Even though most of the oil in Libya goes to the EU, having a steady supply lowers prices for everyone. I much prefer what Obama did and didn't do to what Bush did. I can not believe that there are people who seriously think otherwise.
Just so I'm straight, you support wars for oil?
Bush should have taken notes from Obama. This is the way you win a war for the people of a country without coming out billions of dollars in debt.
This author is such a globalist, it makes me puke. No entangling alliances. Non intervention, no global policing.
You say "globalist" like it's a bad thing. I wish more of the world's leaders were globalists.
Basically this guy is just a yes man for whoever is in power. Always wise after the event...
of course others would help because the risk is low for such a country, others helped in the invasion of iraq.....
Once again this guy is all about Obama. Looked more like the French to me, if that is who we were "supporting" then hats off to the French.
Why were we even in Libya again?
Because, Cameron, what happens in other parts of the world affects us either directly or indirectly, and sometimes helping a people rid themselves of a totalitarian dictactor is the right thing to do. Would you have us become isolationist, like North Korea?
Because if you see a parent beating up his kid so bad that it might get seriously hurt or die, it is a moral obligation to step in, even though it's not your kid.
The United States has the capacity to produce it's own goods, services, food and energy. It is a crime that our leaders have allowed us to become an impotent and dependent nation. Our workers need the work and our factories need the business that comes from supplying the needs of our own. Our foreign policy should be a simple proclamation: We're taking care of our business, everyone else is on their own. Any agressors toward our nation will face swift and utter destruction from afar. There you have it. The candidate that runs on those principles gets my vote. Isolationism is the only foreign policy that is sustainable.
The only country that could be called true isolationist is North Korea. Is that what you want for us? The people of that country have no idea what really happens in the rest of the world. They only know what their government tells them. No, thanks.
Exactly....everyone has to help...just like an old fashion 'barn raisin'...everyone comes to help build it! no new thinking here...just old fashioned 'helping each other.' Now if we all can get back to that way of thinking as individuals and communities we'd be better off!
MCFX and other conservatives make me laugh. Fareed Zacharia is not working for Obama. Conservatives are people who talk about freedom, but never give others the freedom to have different opinion. At least Obama, or his Defense Secretary did not secretly pay retired high ranking military officers to defend their policies in while they were used in the media as military analysts.
More like new era of Doing the work for European Bankers. This is how you repackage imperialists to something positive.
If there is a civil war, so be it. We had one also. I don't think our founding fathers all agreed on everything but what they did agree on they put to paper. As far as obama's Libya policy goes, I think it was the right one. Before Obama the international community would say " oh my god, that's terrible, someone should do something" and so we did, mostly alone or with the U.K. We cannot be seen as warmongers if EVERYONE else is helping too
Yes, BHO led them right into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. BUT having other nations involved, he will just point his finger at them, like he always does.
Refering to a comment by Jim, Libya will not recognize Israel. Egypt didn't.
Whew! Thank God for the change! The President may have goofed on the economy, but he certainly didn't on this one.
As a Veteran who serve in OIF and ONW and a naturalized citizen born in South América. A New Era for United States foreign Policy is needed in this Country. My thoughts are, "It's already happening." Thanks Mr. President.
I'm glad that NONE of the above were around when the American Revolution took place...we would still be under British rule while you were arguing over who was right...ofcourse there was no such thing as "political parties" at that time. Unfortunately Jefferson and Hamilton did not realize that they're great idea would become a couple of "Sea Squirts" that would devour their own brains.
"Sea Squirts"? Where is that marine biologist when we need him?
Jane, really? No political parties back then? You don't study history much, do you?
Conservatives say "sometimes the best move is to keep our government out of it" and liberals condemn them for "doing nothing". But now Obama does nothing and CNN gives him the hero treatment. Especially ironic because the "dictator just removed" phase is exactly where Bush got on his aircraft carrier and claimed "Mission Accomplished". Last I recall, the Left hated that move. Why does the Left now repeat it?
Well said, JD. In most cases, Dems and Republicans are on opposite sides of the same circle.
Lets not pat the president on the back until you see what becomes of this country. Democracy would be nice, however I am guessing we will get another Sharia law muslim disaster producing US hating terrorists who love Iran. We will see.
At least, we didn't spend $trillions$ to do it and thousands of US lives
So now inaction, delay, no plan, and lack of a decision is now regarded as a show of strength and vision........ Wow! why isn't that working for jobs?
'DC – So now inaction, delay, no plan, and lack of a decision is now regarded as a show of strength and vision'
You mean waiting to see if the rebels were actually going to be a viable force and not a flash in the pan, ensuring the US could not get labelled as being the invading aggressors, ensuring that NATO got involved and working with them instead of being the ones to shoulder all the responsibility?
It ushered in an era where we aggressively attack countries that are not our enemies. History will not remember this kindly.
This is a rediculous twist of history and facts ! Only designed to desparately support Obama!
Fact is the UK is providing almost no monetary support! Even Cameron boasted about this. Now the US has spent almost a BILLION on this new war. The monetry spending between the alies is lopsided as usual. It was France and the UK that provided leadership. The US waited weeks to present a face on this situation. Im tired of spending so much money on the military. It's really never been about oil. It's always about the jobs that are created and supported by supporting the goods and services for these myriad of military 'projects'.
Why is anyone patting themselves on the back? This is the same 'Mission Accomplished' BS that Bush did back when Saddam Hussein fleed. There are still too many variables, and we don't know the stability the rebels bring to government. Only time will tell if the removal of Ghaddafi is for the better or worse of this nation. Egypt still has to prove its success and when/if it happens, we can breathe a sigh of relief. From history's perspective, this is only the beginning.
End the Middle East crisis. Outlaw sale and manufacture of the internal combustion engine by 2020.
That'll take 'em down a few pegs.
Great Idea... are your really on board though? how do you get to work every day?
Necessity is the mother of invention. America is great and if any country can find a way to innovate and adapt and make a profit at it, it's the USA.
Think of the opportunity. Talk about economic stimulus!
Wow, I haven't seen this many zeros in one place since my last trip to a Teabag rally. You repukelicans just can't stand that the big, scary, African, muslim, socialist, communist, fascist, green alien in the White House just spiked one in the end-zone. It just crawls up you rear end, doesn't it? Man, that must hurt. Quick, find another redneck from Texas to lead us...before the rest of the world thinks we have some smarts!!!
whatever Bigot.
You have the unmitigated gall to call ME a bigot? Why? Because I call you people out for what you are and point out the fundamental flaws in your arguments? I'll say this, I admire your audacity
I always find it humorous what you mindless, intolerant sheeple consider success
Mindless 'sheeple'? Aren't you all the ones who can only regurgitate the ideas of such intelectual giants as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Isn't it YOUR side of the aisle who gave us the two longest wars in American history? Mr. Kettle, you have The Pot on line 3...
What it really comes down to is Mcdonalds and Starbucks on every corner in Tripoli and Bengazi, which as synical as it sounds is good for the US. Thats been our policy since ww2, expanding our global markets while exploiting labor.
I will say this about Obama. He knows how to wage war in a much more efficient manner than Bush ever did. I wouldn't call this a success yet though. They still don't have a new government yet. We really have no idea who plans on taking over this country. If the Arab League has anything to do with it, don't be surprised if we end up with yet another country run by a radical religion.
well i think its important to consider the fact that in the late 80's we went in to Afghanistan to help the Taliban (talibani literally translates to students- the movement was born from anti-soviet students attending the university of kandahar) because the movement looked democratic. there was a local coalition fighting and we had the support to go in there and help the taliban against the soviets. However, after this was over we still continued to supply afghanistan and we let the borders between afghanistan and pakistan melt together, and allowed pakistan to support and train taliban troops. It turned out that the Taliban didnt just want the soviets out of there business, they wanted eeeeveryone out. After 9/11 we started fighting the Taliban- the SAME people we were supporting, supplying, training, etc. after the Soviets left. we started paying more attention to the borders between pakistan and afghanistan (strictly legal borders- the pashtu population lives in the area on and surrounding the border, a border that wouldnt exist without external powers creating them for political purposes many decades ago). Now it seems to me that no matter if a movement looks democratic, if there is a group of people ready to die for the cause, whether it is inexpensive to intervene, or what. If we continue to enter in to wars that are not our fight, we might end up with another backlash just like the taliban did to us. Limited military intervention is the only solution.
The US helped the mujahideen, not the taliban; the taliban didnt exist during the soviet occupation of afghanistan.
you are correct. they were called the mujahideen, a student movement. they were talibani (which means students) it is what gave birth to the official "Talban"
right on, Zak
We are members of NATO and obligated to help with other members' security that happens to be more direct than ours in this situation. This certainly qualifies. Pretty simple. This action was in our mid-term best interest. Clearly.
I don't see how this is a "new era" in policy. Can someone explain how Iraq was fundamentally different? See 1-4 in the article. Did we not have those same things in place for Iraq?
"Can someone explain how Iraq was fundamentally different?"
Bush decided to invade Iraq; it did not begin as an internal conflict. There are no dead Americans in Libya as a result of this conflict, nor will we leave a large occupying force behind. And whether we're actually bankrolling the operation via NATO (as some have suggested) or not, politically speaking, it is primarily a British/French initiative at this point.
"See 1-4 in the article"
1.) Shiites had been oppressed for decades. Just because they didn't have the power for large scale conflict, does not mean there was no internal conflict.
4.) I would call Iraq genuine burden sharing. This was ill-defined by Zakaria and you seem to expand the definition to something closer to or even past "equal." We are, what, 80% of NATO's power? Whatever the % really is, I think Iraq came close to sharing based on relative capacity. Why should we expect more?
The rest of what you said exceeded the scope of my question. I understand the differences between the conflicts. My question was regarding the general US strategy for /entering/ these types of situations and I just don't see a big difference.
@ZeroGods...right on the money! And, you forgot, our operations in Libya will not cost us TRILLIONS of dollars and put us further into unnecessary debt.
I don't trust Farhud Zakaria.
Finally, after hearing people grumbling that "the United States cannot be the world's policeman" for 40-odd years, someone listened! Thanks, President Obama.
and now people are moaning about how the US didnt lead from the front, or supposedly 'did nothing' or let NATO run the show. Some people are never happy.
It is more like George Bush Sr. policy in First Gulf War were he made sure everyone was fighting and paying for it rather than just the US
President Obama made sure other nations shared the burden, and also went to war without congressional approval. What a guy!
What a great opinion piece written by the dnc.
would Mission Accomplished have been more appropiate?
Wait a minute.....lets look at what actually happened. The US decides to let NATO run things. Great...nothing happens for a long time, lots of people killed. NATO starts to act, even more people killed...rebels run wild....more people killed...the US sits back and watches this happen, even more people killed. This is the first military action in a loing time, where no one (in the media) is screaming about the number of people getting killed. Every time someone is killed in Iraq or Afganistan, the media scream bloody murder. Why not here?
Is anyone as tired as I am on having proclamations from Fareed Zakaria? And how the US needs to “behave” in the world community? Who is this guy?
I think he's hilarious. So pompous and so clueless. He's like an Indian Al Gore.
Well it is a "change" that we didn't go in all alone, but the truth is we shouldn't be policing the world at all when our economy is on the brink. We should be using those resources at home.. period.
F0ck Y0u
Bush and Republicans started a war for false reasons. This is a new direction for our nation after Bush.
Likely U.S. Voters finds the generic Republican earning 48% of the vote, while the president picks up support from 43%. Sorry demorats, you loose.
Geez Louise, Fareed! Just how DOES Obama's dictate?
Wouldn't it be easier for you hyper biased, unprofessional clowns in the media to just profess your love of the empty suited clown instead of writing these fluff pieces extolling the greatness of an abysmal failure?
Sure is working great in Syria..... oh yeah.... oops.
BS... Obama did the only thing he knows how, he did nothing. Now, I don't blame him for not getting us knee deep into yet another foreign affair, but giving him a credit and declaring victory for doing nothing is just not acceptable. No matter how many times liberals repeat the lie, it's still a lie.
$1 billion dollar. Now that's cheap. Much much cheaper than these tax breaks these rednecks vote for.
Racist.
ok Fareed...I get you're a US citizen and I get that you LOVE Obama...but you really need to stop talking like you've been here since the beginning and you know it all, I wouldn't immigrate to another country become a citizen and then lecture the naturally born citizens about their country...you're a convert, it's not the same no matter what the liberal media tries to say
New era: doing it without Congressional approval you mean? Bargain? Ah, "Mission Accomplished." Glad to hear our commitment is done. Earth to Zak: we've only just begun if you want to see democracy there.
Didn't George H.W. Bush try this in the 90's in Iraq? I guess the Chemical weapons Saddam was willing to use on the rebels in his country turned the tided there... Will this policy work everywhere??? NO WAY.
Yeah, our new policy is to be weak, pathetic wussies. Even the French are calling us weak. When the French call you weak, it's time to examine yourself.
Yes Fareed, a new era in US regime change policy is ushered in by that Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obombo. Going forward, the US will not unilaterally bomb dictatorships into submission and impose uncertain regime change. No, instead, we will enlist the aid of our idiot allies to join with us - of course the US will supply all the money for this useless war mongering, and the US will do all the heavy lifting, but hey, that's us, the Obama Planetary Police force.
As Obama clearly calculated, if I have no clue how to fix the US economy and unemployment rate, I might as well attack a few foreign countries and give our defense conractors an opportunity to sell us more weapns.
The part that has to change is this...When we go into a country and defeat it, we hoist up the American flag and that country and all it's resources becomes the property of the American people. Then and only then will destroying another country make common sense.
I like it..."Civilization" rules...what's the point otherwise, yeah lets waste tons of money and people to destroy a place and then give it right back to a different version of the people we just fought...we really should have like 100 states by now
The brown bummer odopey hasn't done anything.
I personally enjoy hearing so many Republicans side with Hugo Chavez on Libya. It's very enlightening.
Hey Fareed you must be the dumbest liberal at CNN. Do you honestly believe that our foreign policy has been "go it alone"? Even under GWB, we reached out to hundreds of nations and when we invaded Iraq, we did it with the support of at least a hundred nations. News media like CNN refused to report it as such but now that our president has engaged in war, you have the need to report that it is a "different" kind of approach which makes you a total and absolute moron. Not a single one of those countries that Obama has been handling with white gloves likes us. In fact, the hatred towards us has grown under your favorite president's watch.
Thanks God for elections! We'll be able to get rid of Obama and vote in a "different" kind of fighter – one that will come in and verbalize our hatred – just the same- towards all of those countries in the mid east.
Had a few people that Assisted.. Look at the costs in terms of $trillion$ of US taxpayer dollars and American Lives.
all other countries that assisted.. $Millions$ of dollars and a few lives.
DISPARITY!
Anybody notice how liberals/left-wingers want what is best for the greater good and seem a little more knowledgable about America and the world, and conservatives/right-wingers think it's all about me, too bad for you, It's mine, don't really have a clue about true American/world facts, and the President is the enemy? Hmmm....
STOP INTERFERRING IN OTHERS AFFAIRS! ron paul 2012
You've got to give him this one. He did something right.
HAHAHHA He didn't DO anything.
Ignoring the Problem and hoping everything works out for the best is going well in Libya for now... but Syria is massacring its people while we hope those unarmed protesters turn the tide on the Armored divisions of the Syrian Army. This is a p!ss poor example of how thousands of people died where only hundreds should have if we had taken a more active role.... or an even LESS active role, Ghaddfy would have won in a week. Killing no less of his civilians than Syria has.... French and Italians change their "no blood for oil" policy when its THEIR oil....
"Mission accomplished"
We've heard that before. 10 years ago in Iraq. Toppling statues doesn't mean much in the long run.
Your kidding right? A new era? This is definetly an opinion piece with little knowledge of anything that happened before Obama.
If only the president would get on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit with a banner in the back ground (Mission Almost Accomplished) , then maybe the dolts on the right might give him some props.
The USA Global PD stands ever at the ready to respond anytime anyplace. All in the name of her best interests.
I suspect that Ronald Reagan, were he alive, would be pleased that Obama contributed US assistance to finishing the job that he started in '86. And did it on the cheap, no less - a nice tribute to responsible government.
Yeah those republican would have done this much better. Kind of like Bush did with "Mission Accomplished" some years ago.....OOPS well almost accomplished
The mission that was accomplished was catching Sadam. He didn’t say the war was over. But who needs to look into details when your blindly bashing someone.
It is my hope and prayer that the rebels are wiped out. Once you understand the truth and what is going on, you want to throw up. I hope everyone in those pictures above are eliminated from the Earth. It takes guts for a conservative Christian to side with the REAL Libyan people with Qadaffi, but better late than never. May this end quickly and may the rebels be pushed into the sea.
This supposed "new era" in foreign policy was actually initiated by George H.W. Bush in 1990 with the international coalition to take Iraq out of Kuwait.
I don't know how you can give credit to Obama for policy that is 20+ years old.
100% waste. It's that simple. The "new foreign policy" is just a new interventionist world government based on the US interventionist model.
Geez. Why don't you just tear down the washington monument and build a statue of president obama.
Another great free political ad for Obama, from his loyal servants at CNN . Too bad this puff piece has nothing to do with reality. Worst administration ever (yes, worst than Jimmy Carter) 1
CNN will only do negative reports on the Tea Party and Republicans... they only do positive stories about Democrats. Aren't you curious about what books he is reading while on vacation????
Can we go ahead and declare Obama dictator now? I mean he did decide to go to war all on his own without the authorization of congress or the people. I mean he authorized absolute power without the checks and balances of congress or the restrictions of the consti2ution right? Even he admits that he doesn't need to have authority from the consti2ution.
Dictator:
noun
1.
a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
The USA Global PD is ready to respond 24/7 anytime anywhere. All in her best interests.
in other news, there wasn't an Earthquake today on the east coast, lets give Obama credit for that as well
Just legalize Marijuana.
I seem to recall us saying this after the first gulf war. We even invented a name for it, "the Powell Doctrine" the fact that Dick Chenney was completely irresponsible war criminal who opened up a brief but tragic period of american adventurism does not make anything that Obama is doing new. And don't believe we are done spending money to support anti American Muslim extremists in Lybia yet. There will be years of this, hopefully more like Kosovo than Kabul, but who can predict?
Seriously?!? I mean seriously? Now we're supposed to give barry credit for leading without leading? Fareed just keeps stooping lower and lower trying to prop barry up. So we're dropping bomb and launching missiles destroying infrastructure and killing civilians but it's not a 'war'...it's a 'kinetic action'. Uh, what?!? Do you people even listen to yourselves? Fareed, how can you give barry props for 'winning' on one hand and pet him on the head for not 'leading' with the other?
Barry has an approval rating under 40%, he only won the election with the support of barely 34% of Americans (52% of the votes, only 65% of population voted = barely 33% support won him election). The raw math then dictates barry has/had only the support of 33% of voting americans. A minority in support. Seems that math says the majority do NOT want barry as president...and never did. Does this majority against barry have the right to overthrow him as his policies appear to be destroying the united states of america? Will NATO bomb the continental usa at the request of 'rebels' should they appear and make the demand? Funny stuff.
Imagine if Russia and China starting taking out American infrastructure and supplying the populance with weapons. Where would your moronic support of foreign countries interfering in anothers government be then? Oh, but that would be different right?! We're the good guys, eh? Remember to consider that the usa refuses to become a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Remember to consider that the usa both kidnaps (extraordinarily renders) and murders (extrajudicial assasination) people all over the world. Remember to consider that the usa maintains an island prison where it incarcerates people for life without trial or rule of law. Consider the usa has formally trained, funded, and supplied guerillas all over the globe (School of the America's). Consider the usa's use of nuclear weapons and depleted uranium killing and contaminating across the globe. Consider the american soldiers stationed around the globe beating and raping local girls (Okinawa, Iraq). Consider the usa tortures for information (water boarding) and pleasure (abu ghraib). Consider the joke that has become the american legal system (Casey Anthony, Straus Kahn). Consider the usa ignores all other countries sovereignty while going and doing whatever they will, whenever they want (Pakistan). Consider the usa is practically crushed under the weight of local, state and national debts. Still think the usa is automatically the good guy? This is all plainly and painfully apparent to all people around the globe...except the poor brainwashed american populance. The charade is over, the illusion has fallen. The once proud and mighty united states of america seems to have become a caricature of itself. It's like the entire country has become a spin-off of Jersey Shore.
This is incredibly "facing" to the Republican party, who has nothing but destroy this country's reputation, killed 1000s of our own military troops, and put us in unfathomable debt. Not to mention, have zero experience in military strategy involving other countries.
Bush lied to Americans, told NATO to shove it (when not ONE country was in favor of us invading Iraq), then went into Iraq with zero proof of a 9/11 connection, and no strategy. Obama finished the bin Laden job, aligned with NATO (keeping our involvement at a minimum), and this genocidal dictator has been ousted in less than a year. Sorry, but cannot argue with success.
So, Impatient Ones, imagine what this cabinet can do, given as much time to FIX America as it took Dumbya to destroy it?
Fareed is a brilliant and forward thinking intellectual. I always find the sensibility in his statements. Currently, and in the recent past, we have suffered huge losses. First and foremost in my eyes is the loss of life, limbs, and future family life of our military personnel and their families and friends. I know of a young officer who came back from the war with only one arm and couldn't even do a simple act such as hold his new twin babies safely at the same time. Second, the cost of all this financially is way beyond America's means. We are confident enough to know we do not need the glory for everything, just like we shouldn't be criticized for everything. The current move in Libya finally brought balance to the American foreign policy. I cried all the way home from work when it was announced we were going into Iraq, knowing it would impact my daughter and her future. Restraining our dominance in a foreign country indicates maturity and an understanding of the times. Well done to those involved.
I'm loving the absolutist responses. I have a news flash for you oversimplifying black-and-whiters, the world is more complicated than any single mind can encapsulate. Every oversimplified strategic policy (isolationism, shoot-first and overpower, etc) has incredibly significant implications that you seem to ignore or downplay.
Well done, Obama. He will NEVER get us into a full out war unless it's is actually needed [remote chance in case new "Hitler" arises]. But he will aid our friends and kill our mortal enemies...PROVEN.
The spinmiesters at CNN are at it again. Show us a breakdown on which country put up the money & hardware to attack Libya to help push the dictator out. Obama turned it over to NATO, but who put up the green. Show us the facts and then I might believe the article.
Sure. He broke US law by not obtaining Congresses approval first with no foreseeable objectives. 'Renegade' O-Blamo is still spending billions and billions of taxpayers money in 3 wars for none other than oil... AGAIN... in an attempt to keep gas prices down so that he can get re-elected and finish his task of single handedly crashing the American economy and diminishing our standing in the world by reducing the US to a socialist/facist government.
Fareed, you are so naive it's scary! Obama is close to useless (and I'm a democrat) but he ain't stupid. Here's the reasons Obama stood back and watched. (A) We have no money for yet another war WHICH CANNOT BE WON. (B) With 2 wars still running, if Obama dragged us into yet another (un-winable) war he can kiss his chances of re-election goodbye. (C) If he got us into another war, what respect we still might have around the world would be close to zero. (D) When this is over, there will be another couple of thousand hard line Muslims determined to attack us. Usually, I find your comments insightful but where Obama is concerned, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. He's a very nice school teacher.......that's all.
Haa haa haa ! Libya has oil that is the only condition for are help, Syria does not have oil so that revolution does not matter. So shove it up your oilly bottom Fakked mohamed what ever your crap name is.
When liberals do it it's called "justice" and it's right! When conservatives do it it's evil and wrong and immoral.
Fareed makes a lot of sense to me. There is no panacea here: most of human history is like this – some good with some bad but ultimately a slight vector toward progress. I celebrate the Libyans victory for their new country and thank the West for helping.
I hope America is not expected to pay much for the reconstruction of Libya, as I heard yesterday they have 130 billion dollars in safe boxes in different parts of the world. Any reconstruction should come out of their budget.
Think we could learn a lot from Star Trek's prime objective, specifically the non interference part of it. Let nations solve their own problems. Sure be a money saver.
So proud of my president. It's amazing how other world leaders can negotiate and work with President Obama, for the good of the world, yet, congress can't work WITH him for the good of the country.
LOL!!
Fareed, you simply are wrong on this one.
First, It was a mistake (and frankly, dishonest) for the President to intentionally diminish the role of the United States claiming this as a purly NATO operation, while the US was the main element of teh operation, financially and militarily. President Obama was hiding behind the cover of NATO.
Second, this operation took way too long and put the Libyan people at greater risk for a longer time partly because Obama was unwilling to lead. Only a few special operations troops on the ground but could have made a huge difference. More lives were lost with Mr. Obama's slow, low key approach than if he had used more American power.
Third, this can hardly be called an Obama success at this point especially with chaos in Tripoli and it is uncertain if Libya will turn into another Somalia or not.
Fourth, Since Mr. Obama took a back seat to NATO, if it is called a success, it is more a NATO success, not an Obama administration success. His supporters simply cannot claim a big Obama sucess whien he downplayed the US role. You cannot have it both ways.
Fifth, as a American, I find it simply disheartening for an American President to so identify with third world opinion as to intentionally downplay, and distain American power and America's role in the world and actually trying to reduce Amerca's power. While I don't seriously question Mr. Obama's patriotism or intentions, I surely do question his judgement and his ability to lead the Uniited States and whether he really has the best interests of America at heart
or the world at large. He was not elected to be World President.
Mr. Obama needs to remember that he is the American president and stop apologizing to the world and start leading or America will in the future not have the ability to influence the world very much at all.
Wow, the dictator is gone, and it didn't cost America over 5,000 of our bravest soldier's lives, trillions of dollars in treasure, and festering resenting from the Arabs in the region.
The US was more pulled along by other nations that had interests in Libya. Although the US picks up most of the bill, this was more in the favor of France and Britain who have stake there. Sarkozy felt like reassertining his country on the world stage, and did so by aiding rebellions in Africa. This is just more of the west inserting itself in other parts of the world. This also is not a new era of foreign policy. Western countries have been funding rebellions and aiding coups all over the world for the last hundred years. Now that we can bomb easier and hide under NATO, its somehow different? So actions over the decades that have been denounced, are now being praised and glorified as something new and special?
Fareed is falling all over himself to make Obama look good. Our Libyan policy was criticized because it did not match our policy toward other nations in the Middle East/North Africa, and people wondered if there was really a cohesive policy or simply ad hoc decision-making.
The president did not take charge by making others bear the higher military burden – he sat back and was a follower. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does not display international leadership. It means we are simply another team player, not the manager.
Praising Obama for the Libya outcome is like giving him a Nobel prize before he did anything. When will we admit that our emperor has no clothes?
Better than an idiot who has no education.
This is incredibly "facing" to the Republican party, who has nothing but destroy this country's reputation, killed 1000s of our own military troops, and put us in unfathomable debt. Not to mention, have zero experience in military strategy involving other countries.
Bush lied to Americans, told NATO to shove it (when not ONE country was in favor of us invading Iraq), then went into Iraq with zero proof of a 9/11 connection, and no strategy. Obama finished the bin Laden job, aligned with NATO (keeping our involvement at a minimum), and this genocidal dictator has been ousted in less than a year. Sorry, but cannot argue with success.
So, Impatient Ones, imagine what this cabinet can do, given as much time to FIX America as it took Dumbya to destroy it?
To bad for your illinformed remarks, the US had a colilittion going into Iraq. Also the fact that intervention in Lybia was of European interest, and the US was pulled along with a very public coup. Something the US and the west has been participating in for the last century. Stop spouting off if you have hardly a clue what you are talking about.
More of the same of us way overstepping what we should be using our military for. If we continue to try to provide military support to the rest of the world, we will create more and more enemies and go even more broke.
If we are helping Libya during its most vital transition why would we not negotiate a value that we (American Citizens) can feel in our daily lives, oil deals. We should be getting pay back from Iraq's oil reserves. Ying Yang. We have given Iraq a gift that's not free, we dance on this politically correct mumbo-jumbo that says we won't ask for cheaper oil because other nations think we went to war just for that purpose. Absurd. Iraq owes the USA plenty and oil is their commodity. I don't want sand, I want what they owe us in payback, in trade, oil for freedom.
It's become apparent that Fareed is very pro-Obama. He's writing articles that are skewed to make Obama look better or innovative. However, it is nothing new to ask other nations to share the burden. Even Vietnam started out with us sharing the burden. Operation desert storm was also us sharing the burden. Same with anything that has a UN or Nato mandate. Bill Clinton also led us into a war that shared the burden among primarly Nato members. The difference here is only that we put fewer troops on the ground. And this is just the beginning. To unseat an unfriendly regime or drive them away from friendly territory has been the easy part the past 30 years...and oftentimes easier than it has been in Libya.
And who did Dumbya "ask" in 2001? Not the American people. Not NATO. He marched right in there and started an illegal war, wasting trillions of dollars on lies, and costing American lives. Yeah, Obama is "evil" compared.
Better than an idiot who has no education.
This is incredibly "facing" to the Republican party, who has nothing but destroy this country's reputation, killed 1000s of our own military troops, and put us in unfathomable debt. Not to mention, have zero experience in military strategy involving other countries.
Bush lied to Americans, told NATO to shove it (when not ONE country was in favor of us invading Iraq), then went into Iraq with zero proof of a 9/11 connection, and no strategy. Obama finished the bin Laden job, aligned with NATO (keeping our involvement at a minimum), and this genocidal dictator has been ousted in less than a year. Sorry, but cannot argue with success.
So, Impatient Ones, imagine what this cabinet can do, given as much time to FIX America as it took Dumbya to destroy it?
When multiple nations are in agreement over what needs to be done, there is no reason whatsoever for them not to team up. Military operations in Libya were a success. There isn't even any reasonable debate to be had over that point.
thank you.. One of the more thoughtful posts here. The Obama haters just can't stand his successes despite their best efforts to try to sabotage his every initiative. His accomplishments are quite impressive in light of the efforts of these treasonable dixiefascists.....
Then you aren't very globally or historically aware. First off fighting has not ended, secondly we do not know what comes next. There is going to be a long, and hard period of reconstruction that may or maynot turn out positivelly for the Libyan people, or the west. So just because big military industrial powers agree they should bomb because you seem to think their intentions are pure and holy? How about just go to war with everybody as long as it serves the west's interests, and easy access to money? How about look at Niger, the Congo, and Somalia to see what hunanitarian cryses look like. I'm sure the international community agrees things are bad...just like they did in Iraq, and all the other countries they have inserted themselves in over the last century. I'm not saying that protecting the Lybian people was wrong(if that can honestly be considered the main intention of involvement), but in fact we don't know what comes next, and western assertion is nothing new on the world stage. There is plenty of debate that can be had on happenings so complex and long reaching. That's unless your perspective is completely shallow, narrow, and unaware.
I'm wasn't commenting on the morality of the Libyan conflict or whether or not we should have gone. We did go. Saying we shouldn't have doesn't change that. What I did say was that it is better to engage in military operations with allies than to go it alone. To extrapolate as much as you did from my simple statement and to make so many assumptions is absurd.
With the US role at 76% of all action, I don't consider that, much of "sharing the burden". Other NATO countries did minimal.
With the precedent that was set in Libya when do we bomb Syria? If this is a new era in foriegn policy it is not a good one, we need more then a POTUS who leaps up from the backbench of the world and says "yea what they said", when he is not doing that he is simply "Present" as he was during the Iranian protest in June of 2009. "Smart Power" is not waiting for everyone else to act, the smart play would have been leaving Libya alone and taking this action in Syria and taking a major ally of Iran off the board.
1 Billion dollars that would have wisely spent on that operation in a region that is currently on fire because we have a President that is in way over his head.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Is this supposed to be a defense of the absurd "lead from behind" doctrine? You say "a new era in foreign policy because Obama made sure other countries shared the burden" but I'm not so sure that's accurate. It seems to me that Obama was dragged into the Libya intervention kicking and screaming by a suddenly interventionist President Sarkozy of France. On this occasion it seems that France and Britain were making sure WE shared in the burden. A rather different perspective...
What exactly is the scope of NATO? When we first launched operation enduring freedom my iPhone tells me that two countries were ready to go. Australia (who is not a part of NATO) and I assume the UK.
Obama is the man
- saved us from depression
- kick started health care reform
- saved auto industry
- put some common sense regulations on wall street
- killed Bin Laden
- gave us 4% growth and 250K job last year, before tea party held USA hostage
I believe you are the dumbest person on the planet.
Before you start making statements calling tea party members criminals (holding hostage – criminal behavior), you should understand that they are average U.S. citizens just like you that have right to express their views that is protected the Bill of Rights. The tea party are not terrorist (Biden) and they are not going straight to Hell (Waters) they are average citizens seeking to get federal government that is addicted to spending under control.
I am glad you pointed that out – so please do not call on fire and rescue or the police to save you for the next several years, as we, per your request, attempt to balance our budget. We can't afford to protect you any longer, sorry.
President Obama does not deserve any praise in this situation.
1. He drew us into a conflict that was none of our business and had little relation to national security.
2. Sharing the burden of costs with which nation? The U.S. fired the majority of missles, flew the majority of sorties, provided the majority of the intelligence, and provided most of the ground support.
3. This started as a U.S. led operation and then was turned over to NATO to try to get some political heat off of Obama.
4. Who is going to pay for the reconstruction? This is yet an unanswered question that will most likely fall upon the U.S. since the precedent has been set in Iraq and other places that if you destroyed it, you have to fix it. This is a bunch of bull, the Libian people should bear the costs and reep the benefits of putting their own people to work to fix the country.
Mike, point for point:
1. What happens in other parts of the world can have great effect on our lives. This time, we helped out in an existing conflict in accordance with UN and NATO resolve. Bush, on the other hand, actually STARTED conflict in Iraq where none existed, at great expense to us in both money and lives.
2. Simply not true in all respects. France outspent us on Libya, and we never had "boots on the ground" over there.
3. Also not true. Obama took more heat for staying in this conflict in a support position. Congress actually tried to impeach him over this.
4. We currently have some tens of billions of dollars in frozen Libyan assets. Once Ghadafi is out, we can give the new regime his money to help them rebuild, maybe even keep a billion or so to cover our costs, which were paltry when compared to what the Bush administration has cost us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
moron.
Unlike the Iraq war, which was started by President Bush. The Arab Spring was started by the people of each individual country. The lybians just spoke for themselves, yes they had NATO backing and other support from the Arab League etc...But although the first few days of the airstrikes in Lybia were mainly US, President Obama made it clear that it was no a US led operation. This is definetely a new era in US foreign policy.
I believe that President Obama's strategy was the right one. With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, this was the best way. In no way does this prove that we should handle all international involvement in the future the same way. Each situation is unique, and much depends on factors beyond our control. I believe that Truman made the right choice for WW2, but I don't recommend THAT for every war.
Of course, just because Libya turned our as well as can be expected so far, doesn't mean it won't go sour in a hurry.
zak dueffus..how long have you been a US citizen?
and you've never seen shared burden with US and our allies before
your richard with ears prez?
Nice "TRY" on re-writing history IDIOT!
THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR YOUR INTELLIGENT LEADERSHIP IN HELPING LIBYA GAIN THEIR FREEDOM.
President Obama, instead of listening to war-mongering Republicans, got other nations involved, got NATO to take charge in helping Libya.
RESULT: NO AMERICA SOLDIERS ON THE GROUND IN HARM'S WAY – SHARED COST OF THE LIBYA OPERATION AMONG SEVERAL NATIONS, INCLUSION OF THE ARAB LEAGUE IN THIS ACTION. UNLIKE THE BUSH WARS – WE LOST NO SOLDIERS, IT TOOK 6 MONTHS, WE HAD MULT-NATION HELP, THE ARAB WORLD SUPPORTED THE ACTION AND INSTEAD OF CREATING HATE OF AMERICA WHICH SPURS TERRORISM – WE HAVE LIBYA AND OTHER ARAB COUNTRIES THANKING US AND IN LIBYA THERE ARE BANNERS THAT SAY "THANK YOU OBAMA"
Of course you will never hear any of this from the Republicans. They are embarrassed they were WRONG about Libya and refuse to give President Obama the credit he is due for this tremendous success. Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham called Libya " a failure". What hypocritical LIARS. They are just mad because they wanted a full scale war and President Obama said no, this will be a NATO effort. We cannot afford any more wars. He was RIGHT and his method WORKED.
THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR BEING A RESPONSIBLE LEADER WHO THINKS BEFORE HE ACTS AND HAS BROUGHT ARAB THANKS, NOT HATRED, TO AMERICA. REPUBLICANS WERE WRONG AND REFUSE TO ADMIT IT SO THEY ATTACK AND LIE ABOUT YOU AS USUAL. REPUBLICANS ARE UNPATRIOTIC AND CRITICIZE EVERYTHING AMERICA ACCOMPLISHES BECAUSE THEY WANT PRESIDENT OBAMA TO NEVER GET CREDIT FOR HIS LEADERSHIP SUCCESSES. THEY ARE PETTY, HATE-FILLED, NON-LEADERS AND WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL THESE REPUBLICANS IN 2012.
GREAT JOB PRESIDENT OBAMA! I WILL SAY WHAT NO REPUBLICAN WILL.
Beautiful post Beverly! What a concept ... share the world's burdons and terrorist with other country and world leaders. Expect others to do their part. Loved your post and admire your eloquence.
Out of curiosity, after the first Gulf War when the shiites and kurds were uprising against saddam and being slaughtered, would you have supported a continued intervention? Would you support intervention in Libya and Iran during their uprisings right now? Just asking. Because Obama has been on the sidelines in every powerful regional powerplayer. Its easy to watch one lamb leave the herd, Its hard to remove the wolf.
thank you, Beverly, very well said!
So when we go into Iraq to take out an evil dictator because he is killing his own people, it is “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time” and it’s “Bush lied, people died”. But we do the same thing in Libya and Obama is a big hero. Guess taking out evil dictators is only a good thing when you like the sitting president, otherwise it’s the most stupid thing a nation can do.
Taking out evil dictators is a good thing.
Having buddies pocket Trillions to it to drag and every last cent from the American taxpayer is wrong, though.
So is wasting the lives of thousands if US solders f another method would have accomplished the same thing..
I used to have respect for Mr. Zakaria as an objective journalist, until I read this piece of garbage. It is ridiculous to call the Libyan conflict a "bargain." And it is equally as ridiculous to call this operation a "success." We will end up paying infinitely more for this conflict when a fundamentalist Islamic state is firmly entrenched in Libya, and a new base for terrorist plots is established in Libya. But hey, at least Obama's smart, unlike W. Four more years!!
And Mr. Obama
This is no "new model"
Another excellent analysis by Zakaria. Maybe, someday, some president will be smart enough to make him Secretary of State.
Your user ID sheds light on your comment.
madcow
"Another excellent analysis by Zakaria. Maybe, someday, some president will be smart enough to make him Secretary of State."
is your first name rachel?
maybe if zak sucks on this prez a little harder he might be
obama's sec of state!
Now this is the way foreign policy is done, thanks to Obama.
Wait another hour and you will see all the Obama hating troll posters come here. It's like they signal to each ... go to CNN ... start bombing the articles praising Obama and where his supporters are proud and gloating in their blogs.
Why isn't there any discussion about how illegal this war was, and the grossly dangerous precedent Obama established here?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/19/libya
Sweet!
The author is splitting hairs. The Democrats and the NeoCons share the same foreign policy. The only difference is that the NeoCons ask for Congressional approval and put boots on the ground while the Democrats (see Clinton and Obama)seek UN approval and use mainly airstrikes. But the fact remains that both parties believe in an interventionist foreign policy that sacrifices American lives and wealth to in order to spread democrary by force. Instead of arguing over what the better empire building strategy is, maybe we should be debating the merits of a foreign policy that invites more attacks on the US and will eventually bankrupt this nation. Or is intervention in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries that did not attack the US not a problem now that a Democrat is the POTUS?
So much ignorance, so little time.
OK people; an analogy. Those of you who think you have the answer or the correct perspective on this: are you computer savvy? I'd like to ask a question for those that are not. Do you tell your IT tech "how it is" before and after the fix? No, you don't. Because you are ignorant to the details and don't have the time to learn all the intricacies; that's why you pay for service. Now. Are you a geopolitical and military expert by profession? No? Then you might want to sound a little less confident and a little more curious for real knowledge. /lesson on humility
I always question where my dollars are concerned. And I found that I had to know other people's jobs in order to get them to do their job in assisting me.
That's a good idea. Many people, however, value their time differently and decide to just trust others, maybe a little too much. It's a calculated risk analysis based on how one value's their "free" time.
My point is, much of the extreme polarity in politics these days stems from hubris; overconfidence in perspective and detail of the subject matter. The talking heads have convinced people that every issue can be boiled down to black and white positions. In many situations, especially military, this couldn't be further from the truth.
Ya the new era starts with Ron Paul!!
Last chance to save the Republic.
fareed zakaria,the obama admins version of Goebbles simply will NOT stop lying for his master obama! and for all of you commenters who waste time from yoru lives typing your OPINIONS with no evidence to support any of your claims are worse that zakaria is.
we all know that zakari is a CNN propogandist for the US,but you fools try to refute him with your own dumb opinions,and guess what? you idiots make him seem credible with all of the lies and rumors that you all type.
so I am going to help you all out so that you people can FINALLY stop it with your own lies and opinions,and you can also have IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that zakaria is printing lies for the US.
THE REBELS ARE AL-QAEADA TERRORIST! IBRAHIM BIN QUMU is on the rebel TNC! just google his name and you idiots and liars will learn the truth,let me give you a head start.
Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu is a citizen of Libya who was held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba.[1] Joint Task Force Guantanamo counter-terrorism analysts report he was born on June 26, 1959, in Darnah, Libya.
Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu was transferred to Libya on September 28, 2007.[2]
Abu Sufian bin Qumu was transferred to Libya on Sept. 28, 2007.[4] and was released from Abu Salim prison in 2010 following an amnesty for political prisoners.[5] In 2011 he became the leader of a band of fighters in his hometown of Darnah during the Libyan civil war.[6]
and if you dig a little deeper,since the US. govt doesnt want americans to know who these terrorist really are,you will learn that Mr.Qumu was the personal driver for OSAMA BIN LADIN! he also immediately after 9-11 helped the wives and children of OSAMA BIN LADIN escape from afghanistan safely into Iran.
Mr.Qumu also was the director of a charity that was ran and funded by OSAMA BIN LADIN! and while they lived in exile in sudan,Mr.QUMU was the personal driver for OSAMA BIN LADIN!
and to all of you idiots who claimed that america did the right thing by removing gadaffi let me give you these facts. THERE IS NO WAY HUMANLY POSSIBLE THAT AMERICA'S LIES ON LIBYA WILL NOT BE FOUND OUT! america has known from day one who these terrorist are and has knowingly hid the truth just to implement regime change in libya!
Abdel Hakim Al-Hisadi, a self proclaimed member of al-qaeda who has stated on the record that back in February of this year,he and the members of his Darnah Brigade of terrorist were in Iraq fighting against american and nato forces and KILLING THEM! he is also a member of the rebel TNC!
USE YOUR BRAINS PEOPLE AND FIND OUT WHO THESE TERRORIST ARE FOR YOURSELVES!! JUST DO A SEARCH ON ALL OF THE NAMES THAT I GAVE YOU AND YOU WILL SEE FOR YOURSELVES! PROVE TO ME AND ZAKARIA THAT YOU ALL ARE NOT THE LIARS OR DUMMIES THAT BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT OUR GOVT TELL YOU ALL?
THE LONDON TELEGRAPH IS A GREAT PLACE TO START WITH ALL OF THE NAMES THAT i HAVE GIVEN YOU! YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION FILE ON Mr. Qumu for yourselves!! if you want to see the truth that is?
London Telegraph? ha ha ha, that was funny, thanks.
if you dont like the truth and the EYEWITNESS statements given by the mentioned terrorist themselves that the london telegraph printed, you can see the same EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY that the self appointed AL-QAEDA terrorist gave to the NY POST! THE WASHINGTON POST OR EXAMINER OR REUTERS!
typical american liar you are! cant admit the truth if you tried! so you try to discredit reputable news agency's,but you love CNN correct? your garbage!
Whack job. Hope you don't own any firearms.
refute me! prove me wrong then? you CANT because EVERYTHING that I posted is 100% true! you cant even use your own brain to learn the truth so you try to critic the person that told you the truth! JUST LIKE THE LYING SOCIOPATH AMERICAN THAT YOU ARE!! YOU CANT TELL THE TRUTH,AND DONT ANYONE TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH!!
My only real concerns with the article is that it leads to a picture that the U.S. has never worked in a coalition before in military conflicts. The U.S. has done both - worked with Allies, and worked on its own. Personally, I have no problem with the approach taken in this case, but it's by no means unique. And although the U.S. might is without question, the article also may give the U.S. too much credit. For example, France, England and many other European partners have substantial air superiority aircraft. If the U.S. were not involved at all, I would not be concerned about any of these Allies, alone or in cooperation, being able to gain air superiority over an aging air fleet in Libya. I believe, in lieu of other information, that we had the right participation... And the approach was viable and worked... But it's nothing new.
I agree.
take a break from this nonsense! see if you can win a free gift card from todaysreview (dot) org
While it may seem nice to get rid of Gadhafi, once again as in Egypt (or even Syria), no one knows what kind of a regime will replace it. While Gadhafi had been a threat to the US & West in the past, he no longer was. He had abandoned his WMD program and turned over complete details of the covert Pakistani assistance to the US, including designs of centrifuges, and even complete bomb kits.
Until & unless we do the same with PAKISTAN kick out their rulers & the army, BREAK-UP THAT NATION & SEIZE THEIR ISLAMIC BOMB all these victories are only notional while THE REAL EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE US, EUROPE, ISRAEL & INDIA (in that order) will stay on and may eventually lead to our doom!
"Success of the Libya operation" is what CNN is saying here. But in Iraq, we deemed it a success at the same point, the ousting of Saddam from power.
But the same thing is happening here, maybe even in a worse way. We have no one on the ground to ensure looting and lawlessness does not break out.
I think in retrospect Iraq was not a success at the point Saddam was ousted. I think it is too premature to say Libya is a success as well. Who knows what will happen in the months to come. Libya might be more successful, but only time will tell.
I thought this article was very well written hopefully future presidents will go about things more like this than the unlimited budget approach that Bush tried. War is more like chess than Texas hold 'em
Bush ran the Afghan campaign exactly the same way as the French ran Lybia.
Perhaps you forgot that we completely rejected any NATO assistance in Afghanistan until we got so bogged down in Iraq and had to beg NATO years later to step in – which incredibly they agreed to do?
Just saw where the US is bowing to Chinese pressure and will not sell Taiwan new F16 fighters. Is this part of a new foreign policy too, bowing to Chinese pressure at the expense of our allies? You all must be so proud of our new "lead from behind" country.
doing israel's dirty work........again
I think the author fails to realize the point that we should NOT have intervened at all. The first line says "a local group was willing to fight." Okay, good. Leave it that way!! Why do we need to go into all these countries and solve their problems? That is the problem with US Foreign Policy, and if I have any say in it with my vote, the new US Foreign Policy will be to NOT intervene everywhere. Also, isn't the US acting entirely as hypocrits, based on thsi article? A rebel group in the United States using violence against the current standing government, would be considered a terrorist organization. So all of a sudden now, since its "not in our best interest", we are SUPPORTING a terrorist group? Perhaps there is some background, besides oil, that we have yet to hear about, that the US will never speak about.
Keep those stories coming, we all like a good laugh. By the way, it is too late to be invited on vacation with Obama.
Was this guy even awake during our initial conquest of Afghanistan? I mean seriously, Lybia followed the Afghan play book from begining to end. Special Forces supporting native rebels (Anyone remember the Northern Alliance?) with heavy air power. New? Really? It was just keeping the country that has required tes of thousands of troops, so get ready for that in Lybia as well.
Its about time... finally we have a President who understands the economics of warfare.
The limited role in the Libyan intervention proves that the United States doesn't need to police the world. The European nations are willing and capable of fighting for liberty and we are not the only people who should pay ($1.3 trillion) for the liberation of oppressed nations.
Great analysis Fareed, but our allies are far more dependent on Libyan oil and will gain nearly all of the benefits for a bargain price to them. It's too early to believe the middle east 'spring' will lead to long-term improvements for the Middle East and for the West, but it could hardly make things worse.
We eliminated Gadhafi's air force in three days, yet our own southern border is still not secured. Can Obama prioritize a little, please?
It's impressive how racist and ignorant we are as a country. It is interesting to wonder whether or not people would be so free with their remarks if they were in front of a camera or in a room full of the people about whom they speak? How easy it is to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and the written word.
What will happen in Lybia? No one truly knows. No one knows what tomorrow will bring in our Own country, much less a country people have never visited or researched beyond watching talking heads or listening to political propoganda.
Critics will continue to criticize, no matter what happens. If the insurgence had failed, the criticism would have been we acted too late and/or not enough. Now that it appears it will succeed, there are other things to criticize.
Some people, I'm convinced, would complain about winning the lottery...yet they play every week hoping for that chance to complain...
Fareed's shilling for obama again...great journalistic ethics huh? he meets with obama and then dispenses what the white house wants dispensed.
the truth is, obama did not show ANY leadership on this one....he was dragged into it and deferred to others...comparing iraq and afghanistan to libya is pure bunk. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were just wars in context to what was happening at the time. They can both be easily justified today...and for the record, both were coalitions of dozens of countries.
America's "new foreign policy" stinks. it projects weakness, precisely what the arab middle east feasts on...and what of iran and syria and lebanon fareed? shall we leave from behind there too? shall we not get involved if the arab league doesnt sanction it? Is that what the new foreign policy is about? kowtowing to the arab league?
you must be kidding.
Obama's Speech @ Cairo University regarding democracy in north Africa was bigger and more important than Reagan's in Germany about the USSR. It was more important because it will end the war on Terror and free millions because preceded the events
sorry dallas....obama merely piggybacked onto Bush's democratization and freedom push for the middle east. Obama's speech in cairo and oslo show that his "new" FP is really Bush's FP. Give credit where its due..you may not like to admit it, but Bush was the reason behind it....having said that, all you liberal candyasses will soon see that democracy in the ME is not what we call democracy here at home....witness hamas in gaza and egypt going to hell post mubarak...
it aint gonna be pretty.
and for the record fareed, the wonderfully created focus group buzzword, "RESET BUTTON" with russia is broken...remember last week fareed? we're parasties according to putin... china just abuses obama....the saudi's hate obama and have broken relations with him, the gulf states hate obama, israel doesn't trust him as far as you can throw him...pakistan – US relations are unravelling post post obama's election....
and you call this a wonderful foreign policy? I think you are lying to the people at the behest of your master, obama.
The republicans wars are still going on, costing us trillions, busting every budget known, causing huge debt, huge recessions, huge oil prices. Obama's war is about over, didn't come close to costing a trillion, no American troop losses, oil/gas prices likely to go way down. If we quit spending about 60% of our revenue intake on wars/huge military, maybe we could have an economy.
Exactly. And could I please take this time to explain to certain idiots above that China owns 7.9% of US debt, not all and not even most of it? Some people need to spend more time researching and less time parroting.
The rebels learned from Iraq. And SOME of us did too.
Zakaria needs to hold off on his celebration of the supposed success of the U.S.'s policy towards Libya. The situation in Libya is far from settled. No one knows what sort of political structure and government will emerge – it could be Islamist, even pro-al Qaeda, nationalist, tribal, or even another form of dictatorship, as relates to the U.S. objective of world domination. Ghadafi was profoundly anti-Islamist, but whatever results from his overthrow could be Islamist, nationalist, and anti-U.S.
Great model Zakaria. Now let's find another country to loot. So the rebels don't have a government yet but they already had time to form a central bank? and a new oil company? This is no humanitarian war it's the looting of the wealthiest sovereign nation in Africa. We've gotten better at doing this HURRAY!!!! Now let's get Syria! Then Iran! That'll stabilize the region AND stop terrorism....by replacing a dictator we've propped up with elements of Al Qaeda. The hypocracy is unbearable. Farheed Zakaria, shame on you for using your god given intelligence to hypnotize Americans.
American ARROGANCE. Why isn't everyone like us. And why don't they like us? OK, we'll call in NATO.
With this new internationalist approach, can there be an effort to rebuild Libya not just with oil? Sustainable tourism should be high on the agenda.
@planetreboot
Great article.
In my opinion, Bush’s declaration of war on Iraq and his phony cry of WMDs were deliberately designed and fabricated by the Oil Companies and the private “war profiteers” such as Halliburton, thinking they would personally benefit tremendously from Iraq’s oil, while we the taxpayers would pay dearly not only for the expense of this unwarranted war but also by our lives. Fortunately, their disingenuous plan back fired and the Iraqis cut off their crooked fingers from their commodities. So their evil and misleading plans were foiled. President Obama not only is smart and a fast learner but also has his heart in the right place. He really and genuinely cares about people and everyone abroad, especially the Arabs, know it – except, of course, the egomaniac, white supremacist conservative populace of this country who still think that they can colonize the indigenous people, assuming that they are not smart enough to know the difference only because they don’t look like them and don’t speak the same language and especially don’t have Jesus Christ on their side. Good deeds always gets cancelled out when the hands are dirty.
World War I had been going on for about three years before the generals on both sides finally figured out that the old colonial war tactics aren't well suited for the modern world (see http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=138823855). It seems like our politicians may finally be learning the same lesson nearly 100 years later. Hurray for progress! (Even if it comes at the speed of a glacier.)
Interesting that the "West" only becomes so concerned about "Humanitarian" issues and "Freedom" to actually intervene militarily when the country just happens to be an exporter of resources to the West. I'll believe that "we" actually believe all these ideals we speak so freely of when the oil export blokade of Iran begins.
I'll say it's a "new era in US foreign policy." Mr Obama just managed to funnel tons of yellow-cake uranium, a cache of WMDs, and 30,000 shoulder fired rockets to the Muslim Brotherhood – one of Al Qeda's staunchest allies.
Look for one of these weapons to arrive soon in an American city near you.
I'm sorry but this is rather misleading. Isn't it pretty clear that we didn't intervene militarily because we're overstretched, economically constrained, and (most importantly) WE DIDN'T WANT THE ARAB TO WORLD TO THINK WE WERE IMPERIALLY INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!
Because of stories like this, I have absolutely no problem with Fox News....they are simply the extreme right to CNN's extreme left-
Fareed – As usual I couldn't agree with you more. There are so many positive angles to this it's difficult to put them all down in a single comment. Obama made an incredible gamble and it has largely paid off so far. And it's important to highlight his approach with McCain's idiotic criticism – 'We could've done faster, better, with more U.S. credit...". It was only because Obama waited as long as he did that we were able to secure maximum international support, which was critical to establishing legitimacy for any operations and for spreading the fallout risk as broadly as possible. It probably would never occur to the unstable and strategically inept McCain but there was no reason for us to push for a forced premature conclusion to the conflict by massively increasing our involvement. We knew we had the ability to cut off Ghadafi in every way diplomatically, economically and militarily to effectively cripple his governing control and give the rebels the best chance at success. We knew there was time and we needed it. Because we didn't rush things, NATO was able to create protocols for coordinating action together and with the rebels; the rebels were able to gradually consolidate their gains while gaining diplomatic support and recognition abroad; the rebels were able to create some form of governing authority and develop at least some post-Ghadafi plans; NATO was able to train rebel forces particularly in the West which became crucial in this later stage of the war and will be even more so in securing the country going further. It was precisely our minimal and behind the scenes involvement that allowed this rebellion to retain its legitimacy. And just as important, this slower incremental approach has allowed the Arab spring to continue into the Arab summer and put even more pressure on Syria, whose own nascent movement has a greater chance at developing into something more. Is it too early to celebrate? Of course it is and this thing is fraught with risk as everything in the Mid East is. But b/c of Obama's approach, everyone has a stake in the Libyan outcome and we came away with no casualties and virtually no expenditure of treasure of diplomatic capital.
This was definitely an improvement over what the U.S. did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Finally a president who is not a cowboy and blunders in hoping for the best. Please do not vote for Perry, we do not need any more cowboys. I live in Texas now, I know. Nor do we need Teabaggers either. Moderates make the best politicians.
Right now, Libya is at the same point Iraq was in 2003.
The fact is Obama handle it well Libyan crises. He is smart and he is surrounding by smart people. President took time but output always good.
“The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan collectively cost the U.S. $1.3 trillion.” More than money world lost confidence on us. Obama regain the trust
It's just getting started. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were won more quickly and more decisively than Libya.
The hard part is what comes next.
You'd think Afghanistan and Iraq would have taught us about premature celebration.
Saddam's statue was toppled in 2003. 8 years later, we're still there and it's still costing us money.
I'll be back in 2 years to tell you all "I told you so"
Americans want glory for two reasons:
1) For troops who participated in those missions to feel appreciated.
2) All foreign interventions carry the intention of furthering American Democracy. To turn a culture to democracy requires the citizenry to appreciate America in order to strive to emulate it.
In my humble opinion, Libya was handled better by Obama than Iraq was by Bush.
Perhaps the difference stems from having someone who actually thinks in the White House. It seems that thinking is painfully difficult for GOPsters. The recent crop of GOP President-wannabes (Bachmann and Perry especially) confirms that.
America does not have a monopoly on Democracy .... Many other countries (most of Western Europe) can 'educate' un-democratic countries on the benefits of democracy. So, there is no need for America to get involved in every conflict, esepcially when no key strategic interests are at stake ....
On the basis of what I have seen so far, I think that Obama has no interest in getting too involved in re-constructing Libya, which is not to say that he will be totally disengaged ...... Besides, the Europeans have more interests at stake and will probably do more more to help Libya .... did I mention oil?
He still spent our money without the consent of congress on military operations with a country we neither declared war on or had any military stategic value. Our foreign policy still sucks. When he closes a few hundred off shore military bases...like ones in Ecuador or something I'll consider giving him some credit.
The mandate for the President and US Military is to protect US citizens from threats foreign and domestic, NOT to secure foreign interests for the profit or gain or corporate individuals or groups.
Don't know why I'm bothering though since 90% of what I write gets banned from Zakaria's opinion posts anyways.
Let's all pat eachothers backs. Maybe hang a "Mission Accomplished" sign. We all know, once you topple the regime in power in a Middle East nation, the fighting's over.. Right?
In their blind hatred of Obama, the GOP and the red necks who support them are now trying to claim ownership of this new foreign policy approach that is Obama's own and for which he should receive full credit. Events in North Africa and the Middle East are turning "our way" without any military involvement or aggressive political maneuvering. That we helped our allied at NATO was perfectly reasonable and expected. But nothing more. What a success story this has been. No predecessor has ever done anything like it. Congratulations Mr. President. Now, let's get out of Afghanistan and Iraq at a pace that YOU feel is appropriate and the fell with the Republicans.
For those who are concerned about the money, First of ll, I don't think that Libya will not end up paying this 1 bilion dollar. Second, just the benefits of over 3 billion dollars of Libyan Money in US is enough to cover this expense besides the future of American business in Libya regarding oil companies and many others.
To be sure, not a "new era", so much as a restoration of how things used to be before the neocons and their puppet dictator Bush destroyed our country.
Obama has said from day one (even before day one, if you read his book) , that he wants to restore the environment of sane political discourse that once existed in the US. Some of us still remember those days, you know. Our brains haven't been erased by talk radio goons. Back in those days it was "united we stand, divided we fall."
It's telling, and it reveals a lot about the sad state of U.S government and politics, that Obama has had better results internationally than he has had domestically. It just goes to show you, there are still a lot of folks in America that want to divide us for their own political gain. The Bush administration, and the current mob of GOP candidates are all from the same America-hating ilk. They'll destroy us before admitting they were wrong.
For those who are concerned about the money, First of all, I don't think that Libya will not end up paying this 1 bilion dollar. Second, just the benefits of over 30 billion dollars of Libyan Money in US is enough to cover this expense besides the future of American business in Libya regarding oil companies and many others.
I'm just waiting for the IMF and The World bank to come in screw everything up. There's no new F. Policy????
Please watch John Pilgers video
The New Rulers Of The World
Is global power actually in the hands of large multi-national corporations?
Zakaria was critiquing Obama's foreign policy. That has nothing to do with the outcome in Libya. Getting America some dignity in the eyes of the world at this time is not just nice – but necessary. If only his economic policies were this successful...all in all, still grateful to have a reasonable realistic person as President. Too bad people cannot see what an improvement he is on the last guy!
Good point. I would believe a right wing person more if he was less partisan and willing to acknowledge successful policy by the other side. It seems the right swings from Neoconservative interventionism to traditional isolationism with disconcerting speed. It's like they can say one thing one day and say the complete oppostie the next without skipping a beat, first accusing Obama of not doing enough and then too much. They have the lost the ability to think and speak rationally. Strangely, if you follow Zakaria, he is a sterling example of traditional conservatism.
Is stand back and watch a good foreign policy?
Some of my Republican friends were calling Libya Obama's (well, actually, they used a less respectful name) Vietnam a few weeks ago. A couple of days ago, they were predicting mass anarchy in Libya followed by a conservative Islamist state. Today, they're claiming that Libya is a big victory for the policies set in place by George W. Bush. In their eyes, no matter how well things go, Obama and his foreign policy will never get any positive creidt. He'll only get the blame if things go wrong.
The true 'new era in US foreign policy' is one where the president can go to war without congressional approval or oversight. If it's such a worthy cause, and if it's so cheap, then why wouldn't you try and get congressional approval? Obviously the Bush policies were wrong, but he did get the congress to approve. This is a dangerous regression of american policy that will lead to more war and more military spending and more dead american soldiers. Zakaria is clearly just begging for a spot in the obama white house...or does he truly believe what he is writing? I don't trust the judgment of anyone who says a billion dollars is a small amount! you could easily house every chronically homeless person in this whole country for a whole year with that much money...or contribute over $15,000 to the treatment of every cancer patient in this country...or give $1,000 to feed every child that regularly goes hungry in this country....or we could start paying off the deficit....any of these options would be more effective in helping americans than fighting a war in n. africa.
Cannot agree more!
The face of America, as seen by the world (minus America that is) changed, for this one time, from:
"We, the USA, the Greatest Country on earth, have changed history again. Look how good, righteous and powerful we are in establishing freedom and democracy out there"
into/towards
"They are the Ones, look how courageous, freedom longing and powerful they are. We are proud having supported these freedom fighters in there cause, together with surrounding nations, the Arab league, the European union in particular the UK, France. Italy and NATO overall, on a United Nations mandate!
And by the way, while the USA is in its cost cutting balancing act, at close to no cost at all!
Is the USA finally becoming modest and very influential and successful at a relatively small cost level at the same time??
That would be clever and beneficial for ALL!
Let's hope this is going to be the new "Modest" and "Leading from behind" doctrine of USA foreign policy.
It may be a loss for the American Ego, but it will be a gain for the world.
And: The USA will be looked upon as a friend in the cause of freedom, instead of an secretive aggresor with an oil agenda .
I think that Libya is a great example of humane libertarianism. Americans are a lot more optimistic about it than the British who are now whinging they shouldn't have been in the country at all because it's nothing to do with us. Bit selfish...
I've grown to despise Zakaria, and all of you mindless idiots who actually believe any of this crap about Libya and Gaddafi. This man is the victim of global totalitarianism! NATO committed an act of treason and murder with the massive bombings of Libya and Gaddafi's regime. France, the UK, and America are all lining up to steal Libya's oil and if you continue to refuse to face reality, we are all doomed! There was absolutely NO humanitarian crisis before we started bombing Libya, but you better bet your a$$ that not only have we created a crisis with killing thousands of Libyans already, just wait and see what happens in the very near future. Stop drinking the koolaid, fools and maybe learn something about freedom and it's demise in the USA.
Republicans are best when it comes to National Security – WAR – no brains required just – WAR.
I've grown to despise Zakaria, and all of you mindless idiots who actually believe any of this crap about Libya and Gaddafi. This man is the victim of global totalitarianism! NATO committed an act of treason and murder with the massive bombings of Libya and Gaddafi's regime. France, the UK, and America are all lining up to steal Libya's oil and if you continue to refuse to face reality, we are all doomed! There was absolutely NO humanitarian crisis before we started bombing Libya, but you better bet your a$$ that not only have we created a crisis with killing thousands of Libyans already, just wait and see what happens in the very near future. Stop drinking the koolaid, fools and maybe learn something about freedom and it's demise in the USA.
Idiot... Why are you talking like to oil is some big secret? We'll help out Libya because human rights are being neglected and whatnot... aaaand they have oil that they may share with us when we remind them that they overcame their oppressor with our help. Duh? When gas costs 5 bucks a gallon instead of 8, maybe you'll think again.
This quote from a PRI story says it all
"A spokesman for a new rebel-run Libyan oil company, Agoco, essentially confirmed Lee's analysis, saying Russia and China may have a harder time returning to Libya's oil fields."
Sometimes being the good guy does pay
well said and thought out fareed.better than anything some of these rednecks on here could have thought up.
Obama just got lucky. he got lucky on Egypt, lucky on Libya, lucky on Osama, lucky on thwarting all other terrorism plans, lucky in taking country out of recession, Looks like he's the most lucky man in the world. I guess he can get lucky on Economy also if only the teabaggers let him do that.
You call that leadership? Obama had to be dragged into the US limited involvement. Why couldn't he have just said no? His advisors told him he couldn't turn down NATO allies, especially since the UN agreed for humanitarian reasons – Obama said, OK, but we're only contributing support, as NATO asks for it. While that's laudable, I certainly wouldn't want to 'lead from behind' on other occasions – hopefully this will be a short 'break'
WHAT IS MAKING MOST OF OUR DEFICIT?
1+billion every day each day in Iraq
1+billion every day each day in Afghanistan
1+billion every day each day in Pakistan
3/4+billion every day in countries like Israel and Lybia
when we get to well before half of those countries all over the world on that list that don't and shouldn't want us to bother them around the world every day times 365, THAT'S OUR DEFICIT! THAT'S WHY WE'RE DEPLETED!
We REALLY can't afford to even bother with ANY of these countries anymore, and it'd be best if we didn't! Philadelphia and Detroit are cities with WORSE than third world condition poverty that is getting worse all the time-democracy and charity starts at home! Let's take care of our own country's fitna before we cause fitna in any others!
Again, I realize you want US to be weak so that you and your buddies, including George Soros here, can realize your new world order. We the people don't buy it!!!
What's with everyone hating this intervention? It's impossible that the US ignore things like this, especially with our reputation. I agree with Fareed. We got a good deal and more importantly, one more ally in a part of the world where allies are not easy to come by. Yeah it costs money, but is the US really just going to pull every asset back stateside and spend money ONLY on domestic issues like so many people in this blog want? Doubtful.
"Some on the left – the great liberal internationalists – are horrified by the fact that people in Benghazi cheered for French President Nicolas Sarkozy."
That's really sloppy. Who? I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of liberal internationalists welcome the chance to not be the center of attention for once. That's the whole point of multi-lateralism.
Mr. Zakaria wrote:
“the great liberal internationalists – are horrified by the fact that people in Benghazi cheered for French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They think only President Obama's name should be on the lips of the liberated Libyans.”
Did he do any actual research as to find out if the ones he calls “great liberal internationalists” indeed are horrified? Can he mention any name?
Zakaria also mentions:
“The old model of American leadership – where we took all the decisions, bore all the burdens, paid all the costs and took all the glory – has to change.
During the Persian Gulf War, I was in active military duty in the U.S. Air Force. Back then, the USA formed an international coalition before we went to Irak. All those countries shared some of the costs and the credit. Didn’t Mr. Zakaria realize such coalition was formed? Why does he project the idea that the USA intervenes in other countries alone to get the credit for it by itself? Where was he in 1991? Was he in Madrasa Terrorist Jr. High?
Zacakia says:
“People in Washington are going to have to realize that when other countries ‘step up to the plate,’ they too will naturally get some share of credit.”
What people in Washington? Homeless hobos or Congressmen? Apparently, in journalism school, he never learned to be specific
And, what plate? Is war a baseball game? Evidently, in journalism school, Mr. Zakaria never learned that in serious writing, writers should never use figurative language. If “step up to the plate” means “participate,” why didn’t he just use the latter word?
Then he wrote:
“But there is actually nothing wrong with a world in which the Europeans are also associated with the cause of freedom and liberty.” Who ever said it was wrong? Does he have any evidence that someone in the USA ahs been saying it is wrong for Europeans to associate with the cause of freedom and liberty?
And he gets paid to write all those inaccuracies and insults toward the USA?
In fact, with the horrors of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan with millions of civilians killed by US bombs. America should not intervene AT ALL. In every invasion, the US has left a mess. Americans are only good at fighting Cowboys and Indians. They should stay home and go back to isolationism. America has a very twisted and misinformed view of the world and are incapable of understanding the myriad complexities of those foreign lands.
It is scary that Mr. Zakaria did not mention once in the whole article, what right do we have to say who runs Libya and who does not. In a Times Magazine special edition that came out some time after 9/11, a report was done on the Arab World, ME & NA. A color grid ranging from Blue (highest) to Yellow (poorest) and every color in between (medium) designated/represented the level of economic growth, stability, and rated the education level in the country. You can imagine, most nations were light orange to yellow. Interestingly, Libya was the ONLY nation that was Blue. With a strong, or with ONCE a strong Upper/Medium class and stability we went from Dragging Ghadaffi to reform and making him denounce his past mistakes, to dragging him out of power. We must understand, traditionally this is how ME societies are ran – through tradition. Rulers are in power their whole lives, that passes on to their children, etc. This is not something new, meaning the past 100 years. This tradition has lasted longer in that region way before the Columbus even stepped foot in The New World. Families tend to run societies over there, like our friends in Saudi Arabia, you know the family that we helped put in power over almost eighty years ago and is still in power despite their track record (namely in regards to supporting acts of global terror AND state sponsored terrorism – when they supported the Taliban, alongside our other "allies" Pakistan and the UAE). But, nonetheless, what is done is done because after all it is as Mr. Zakaria has said, what serves out "national interest". Has anyone asked, what will happen IF a new regime is incapable of upholding our standards or Democracy in that region? Tougher or Interesting times ARE indeed ahead; namely because we don't know what is going to happen because as the essay has pointed out this is our New Foreign Policy. Of course you all remember well what happened in our old New foreign policy... when was in March 2003, in Iraq? When we were told they would embrace us with bouquets of roses and flowers. Egypt is still around a state of martial law. Lets see how their neighbors do.
On a last note, it will be interesting to see how the U.S answers an important question that may come up. We're supporting the reinvention of states (or State Building) around the Arab world... what about Palestine? We're supporting their brothers, what are we going to do about them?
"see the new boss, same as the old boss...." methods change, imperialist intervention doesn't
I cannot get over the hipocracy of this writer and liberals patting Obama on the back. If president Bush had commited us into this Libiya effort there would have been massive outcry against him. Let's wait and see what the outcome of this revolt is. In three years if there is a stable government in Lybia than you can say he did good. But what happens if Lybia turns into another Somalia? This author is so biased for Obama, he's lost all credibility. I only read CNN to see what the liberal loons are thinking these days.
What is wrong with you? If President Bush had done anything like what we just did in Libya, we ould not be in this economic ROT. He took 8 years to run the country down, and the idiots like you who voted and REvoted for him cannot see the good it does to America by keeping a low profile and yet participating in international conflict resolution. What is your objection? That Obama's solution in Libya did not bankrupt us overnight or kill another few thousands of our kids??
The Republicans are hypocrites, as well as uneducated and immature. Thats whats wrong with them.
The U.S. needs to promote regime change in bloodsucking, greedy Israel. The Kosher rats and Wall Street money boys are the reason we've made so many enemies in the Middle East. Working at Starbucks Corporate office, you see how the rats think and manipulate the goyim.
Fareed, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and also hope this represents a change in American policy, at least until the next Republican gets into office. I get a kick out of watching the Conservatives squirm to put Obama's statesmanship in a negative light. If only Cowboy George had acted as wisely with Iraq II.
Obama handled this very well. In spite of the moaning by the rethugs.
Actually, much of the flak came from liberal Democrats, Larson and Kucinich being examples of the noisiest.
Fareed would be wiser to put off going into a "Mission Accomplished" rapture until he sees how things actually work out in Libya.