Libya

The Aftermath of NATO's Libya War: ISIS Reportedly Seizes Mediterranean City

Tell us again how that war went well.

|

Almost exactly three years after NATO's intervention in Libya ended with what we were told was a great victory, ISIS has reportedly taken control of the Libyan city of Derna:

Hushion House

The black flag of ISIS flies over government buildings. Police cars carry the group's insignia. The local football stadium is used for public executions. A town in Syria or Iraq? No. A city on the coast of the Mediterranean, in Libya.

Fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are now in complete control of the city of Derna, population of about 100,000, not far from the Egyptian border and just about 200 miles from the southern shores of the European Union….

The Libyan branch of ISIS now has a tight grip on the city, controlling the courts, all aspects of administration, education, and the local radio. "Derna today looks identical to Raqqa, the ISIS headquarters town in Syria," [counterterrorist Noman] Benotman told CNN.

Meanwhile, Marc Lynch, who supported the Libya war, has posted some reflections this week on how he got that call wrong. One interesting point he makes is that NATO helped pave the way for not just the present chaos in Libya but the present chaos in Syria:

I had placed a great deal of emphasis on the demonstration effects of an intervention. My hope had been that the intervention would act to restrain other autocrats from unleashing deadly force against protesters and encourage wavering activists to push forward in their demands for change. Unfortunately, this only partially panned out and had unintended negative effects. U.S. cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council states in Libya compelled it to turn a blind eye to the simultaneous crushing of Bahrain's uprising.

The worst effects were on Syria. The Libya intervention may have imposed a certain level of caution on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, leading him to search for just the right level of repression to stay beneath the threshold for international action. But that didn't last for long and his violence quickly escalated. Meanwhile, the Libya intervention almost certainly encouraged Syrian activists and rebels—and their backers in the Gulf and Turkey—in their hopes for a similar international campaign on their own behalf. That unintended moral hazard probably contributed to the escalation of Syria's civil war.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on How the Government Steals from Citizens

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is impossible. I have been repeatedly told by Shreek and other lefties that the military action in Libya was a shining example of how well things could be done, and why Obama was so much better than the idiot who preceded him.

    1. Remember the street-sweeper after the parade in Rocky and Bullwinkle? Where is he when we need him?

      1. Actually, the street sweeper was after the parade in Peabody’s Improbable History.

        I bring this up only because we do need the street sweeper for Obama’s Improbable Future.

  2. I was told that the Arab Spring was going to bring about the dawn of a new era of liberal democracy.
    I was told that Islamism was a response to dictatorship and oppression, and if the dictators fell it would lose it’s appeal.

    1. I was told 150,000 US troops in Iraq would democratize the Middle East.

      NATO didn’t make that mistake.

      1. I was told that Obama was going to prosecute the telecoms for their felonious behavior, and that Guantanamo would close, and that he was going to wind down the war on pot, and roll back the abuses of the war on terra, and use science as the basis for FDA decisions (Plan B, cough, cough! Cause I’ve got teenage girls, cough, cough!).

        But that was Obama doing the telling, and at this point it’s obvious to all but the most obsequious partisan hacks that he lies every time he opens his mouth.

      2. So it okay to totally destroy a country and leave it to the Islamists as long as no Americans die.

        Go fuck yourself and die. Obama bombed Libya for fucking fun and walked away and left the place in ruins and you defend him and think it was great. My God you are a pathetic piece of shit.

      3. God damn but you are an immoral piece of shit.

      4. Palin’s Buttplug|11.19.14 @ 11:06AM|#
        “I was told 150,000 US troops in Iraq would democratize the Middle East.”

        Hey, turd! Tell us how O-care would be forgotten. I like that story.
        And how about the one where it was gonna save money? Or how it wasn’t going to increase the debt?
        You’re just full of, well, something!

      5. Rumsfeld was told 450,000 troops would democratize the Middle East.

      6. Incidentally Iraq is now a democracy, the oppression of the Minorities (and the subsequent rebellion of some of theose minorities) by the Shi’ite majority was conducted by a duly elected democratic government. Proving once again that democracies can be just as tyrranical as autocracies.

        If you need further proof of this read Thucydides “History of the Peleponsian War” which is full of accounts of the earliest democracies voting to do horrible things.

    2. I was told that Islamism was a response to dictatorship and oppression, and if the dictators fell it would lose it’s appeal.

      It is… and once they are seen as oppressors, they too will fall.

      Consider this, the islamists have never been able to hold any territory without people rebelling against them.

      As one of the people saying the Arab Spring was a good thing, I repeat what I said then – the Arab Spring was the only realistic way the secular Arab Nationalist dictators would be swept from power – which was a prerequisite for Arabs to alter their society from kleptocracy to more liberal forms – but that what came next would inevitably be the Islamists who would then have to discredit themselves with misrule before people would reject their brand of salvation and be open to something else.

      It wasn’t a question of if the uprising would happen, but a question of when. It could have happened decades from now, but it was going to happen.

      1. The days of keeping the Islamic nuts down by supporting local thugs like Mubaric and Kadaffi are over. Those guys were going to go down and these societies are too broken to keep the Islamic nuts at bay.

        We had two choices, intervene and make the Middle East into one big colony while they unfuck themselves, which is not an option or walk completely away and let the virus run its course.

        We should have choose the latter. It was our only choice. If a state arises that is an actual threat to us, then we should act accordingly. But otherwise, you are right. The only way to discredit the Islamic fanatics is for the people of the Middle East to figure that out on their own. All we can do is stand aside and make sure the fanatics never get enough power to be a real threat.

        The only reason we got drug into Libya was because Europe didn’t want to deal with a refugee crisis. It was utterly stupid.

        1. We should have choose the latter.

          We didn’t want to upset our Saudi and Israeli brothers.

          1. Israel would not mind at all.

      2. *Consider this, the islamists have never been able to hold any territory without people rebelling against them.*

        Really? You’ve never heard of Iran? Or Afghanistan before we got there?

        1. Afghanistan’s civil war never ended the entire time the Taliban was in power. Iran had an uprising in 2009.

      3. which was a prerequisite for Arabs to alter their society from kleptocracy to more liberal forms

        Before a society can make such a switch it has to be at least marginally conducive to liberty. Which Islam plagued cultures are not.

    3. It worked in Tunisia, and to a limited extent in Yemen. Algeria and Morocco undertook reforms. The Arab Spring is still the best game in town for eliminating the pseudo-secular regimes that do a lot to fuel terrorism.

  3. Well, fuck. Time to elect a new head of NATO then.

    1. Yummy tears.

    2. Because NATO was really the problem?

    3. Palin’s Buttplug|11.19.14 @ 11:05AM|#
      “Well, fuck.”

      More lies, turd? Just keep ’em coming.

  4. Gosh, who could have predicted that running around bombing people has unintended consequences? Probably some Murica hating traitor.

  5. Time to put some boots on the ground in Libya!

    ~John Bolton

  6. You mean lobbing a few Tomahawks into Libya didn’t fix it? JUST LIKE IRAQ!! EXACTLY LIKE IT!

    1. There are some obvious differences between what Bush did regarding Iraq and Obama did regarding Libya, differences that make one far less bad to a non-interventionist, but that doesn’t mean that Obama’s action wasn’t a mistake and miserable failure in its own right,

      1. Objectively what Obama did was worse. There was a saying back when we invaded Iraq, “you broke it you fix it”. And it was a valid one. If we wanted to intervene and destroy their government, we rightly assumed some responsibility in helping them deal with that aftermath.

        In Libya, Obama intervened and tipped the civil war against the government. Had Obama no intervened, the Libyan government would have won the civil war and there would be a government there today. Thanks to his intervention, there isn’t one. Obama broke Libya and did nothing to fix it. He just left them in chaos.

        Idiots like Shreek claim that is a good thing. No, it is a terrible thing. Obama didn’t have the will or the political backing to help stabilize and rebuild Libya. He therefore was even more wrong to intervene in the first place.

        And lets not forget that Bush invaded Iraq to enforce a UNSC resolution and Obama made war on the Libyan government with no legal justification whatsoever. We could debate the legality of the second Iraq war for days. But whatever side you are on, it is a debate. There is no debate about Libya. By any objecting standard it was an illegal war under international law. And the US and NATO illegally walked away from their responsibilities as intervening powers in its aftermath.

        1. John, do you not get that Iraq is broken as well? And it’s broken after far more American lives and dollars have been sacrificed.

          1. John, do you not get that Iraq is broken as well? And it’s broken after far more American lives and dollars have been sacrificed.

            Sure it was. And we stayed there and met our responsibilities to fix it. That is the entire point. Your argument is just that “Libya is better because we walked away from it and fucked the Libyans instead of staying there and giving them a shot like we did in Iraq”. And that is a profoundly immoral argument. No, it is not better, it is worse. And if you don’t like the price we paid in Iraq to meet our obligation, then that makes the intervention in Libya all the more wrong. It doesn’t somehow make it better because we walked away and did the wrong thing after intervening.

            Libyans are human beings too. And their lives count when judging our intervention there. Sorry but the “at least no Americans got killed” is not a justification for it or make our intervention there any better.

            1. We didn’t give Iraqis a shot, we wasted our and their time as well as thousands of US lives and billions of dollars you and I are on the hook for now. And Iraq is in the same chaotic, awful state as Libya.

              Nation building is no more likely to make anything better than just helping one side win and leaving.

              1. We didn’t give Iraqis a shot,

                They had 8 years of US support training, lives and billions of dollars. They had every shot in the world. And when it came down to it, the Suni government was more interested in stealing and settling scores than it was in building a country.

                The Iraqis have only themselves to blame. Just because we occupied didn’t mean we had to stay forever. At some point they have to own their country.

                It is clear you can’t think straight about this. You are just too emotionally attached to your objections to the Iraq war to even think straight about other wars let alone that one.

                1. “They had 8 years of US support training, lives and billions of dollars.”

                  And everyone should have known that had the chances of making things better equal to just walking away

                  1. Bo,

                    Iraq had a legally elected sovereign government that choose to ask the US to leave. The US would have stayed had Iraq agreed to it. They didn’t.

                    Only someone as mendacious as you could argue that the US didn’t meet its obligations as an occupier or that the state or Iraq isn’t the responsibility of the people who live there at this point.

                    What exactly was the US supposed to do in 2011, remain there over the objection of the Iraqi government? Yeah, I am sure you would have supported that.

                    1. You’re not getting my point: it’s not about our failing to meet that obligation, it’s about realizing that the obligation was impossible. Our government can’t deliver the mail, much less create a government and civil society half way across the world.

                    2. It is now clear to me that Iraq as it exists now never was a viable nation and never will be. It wasn’t and isn’t Germany or Japan after WWII. Both of those societies had an ethnic identity and were utterly destroyed and had no choice but to succumb to our will. Iraq, on the other hand, has no uniting ethnic identity and was also not defeated utterly.

                      It is long past time to get out and stay out.

                    3. It’s an artificial nation. Why anyone would think that our government, which isn’t up to very basic things, could possibly make things better by pouring our tax money into it is beyond me. And taking that up because of ‘our responsibility under international law’ is incredible.

                    4. It’s an artificial nation.

                      Yes, and one of the few instances where Joe Biden was correct in his analysis.

                    5. Oh I can understand the rational completely. If it were possible to establish a functioning democratic republic within the borders on the map that define the entity ‘Iraq’ it would undoubtedly be a positive development in the region, I think.

                      However, establishing a democratic republic with at least three different religious/ethnic groups that each hate each other is impossible until all of those groups comes to grips with the idea that maybe killing each other over different interpretations of their stupid ass fairy tales is a bad idea. Or until one of those groups basically wipes out all of the others.

                    6. It’s an artificial nation.

                      By that standard, so is Belgium. So is Switzerland. So is Russia. In some ways, Spain and Italy might qualify as “artificial” nations, as well. Hell, even Germany is a bi-confessional state (and thus potentially “artificial” in nature). In fact, almost every nation on Earth a mere 200 years ago would have been “artificial”. The fact that distinct ethno-religious communities exist in a nation does not doom that nation; it does make the task more difficul

                    7. As awful as the government is at doing many things, your statement is just as glib and silly as when leftists claim that the government sent man to the moon, why can’t it do X?

                      In point of fact, there have been plenty of examples of governments carrying out what John suggests successfully. Personally, I don’t see this type of occupation as an obligation in the same way that John does nor did I think at the time that the casus belli against Iraq was particularly good — but there are enough examples of governments establishing stable governments/client states that I’m not going to claim the impossibility of this task given the empirical evidence to the contrary.

        2. America had no responsibility for fixing Iraq. Liberating it was a huge enough favour to the Iraqi people. There country was broken on arrival. ‘Fixing it’ is a huge immoral act of burdening Americans.

    2. You mean destroying a government and replacing it with nothing would end badly?

      Obama committed a war crime here. He intervened in a civil war and helped destroy the government. That meant the US and NATO were responsible for the duties of an occupier. Instead, he just walked away and left the place after being there bored him.

      You no doubt think leaving those people to die is funny. You are murderous, scumbag. The rest of humanity doesn’t see it that way.

      1. You may be devoted to occupations and nation building John, but it’s hard for me to square with my small government aims.

        1. I agree that nation-building is usually a bad thing, but I think what John is saying here is that if you do break it (which I think we all agree you should think twice and maybe think again prior to doing) then you are responsible for fixing the mess you created.

          But hey, what if we stopped breaking things in the first place?

          1. Any intervention during civil strife could tilt odds and help one side fall, and that’s one of many reasons to not get involved. But more intervention does not equal a less bad situation for the country that’s the subject of intervention, and is likely to cost more to the intervenor. So it strikes me as obviously worse.

            1. Yeah but Bo you’re a moron and peacenazi. You don’t get to sit at the Adult’s table.

        2. Are you realy this fucking dense!?!

          John said that under International Law if one state attacks and overthrows another government, it has a duty to provide security and governance.

          And he is fucking correct (I actually remember this from my officer training in the Navy).

          Stating this doesn’t mean that one supports nation building, in fact it’s one of the arguments I use against the sort of interventions Obama adores.

          It means that any military campaign should be very soberly considered and not just recklessly entered into lest one look like one isn’t a master of the world.

          1. Given that our nation building failed spectacularly in Iraq what’s the point?

            As a noninterventionist I judge these matters not on arcane precepts of international law but the level of intervention.

            1. Given that our nation building failed spectacularly in Iraq what’s the point?

              That we should think long and hard before we intervene. The point is not “well hey at least Obama only fucked up the country and left before it cost too much”. That is not a defense of Obama. It is an indictment.

            2. As a noninterventionist I judge these matters not on arcane precepts of international law but the level of intervention.

              You really are dense!!!!!!

              You know what, sunshine? Take two dog-poop baggies, take a shit in one and put your judgement in the other and tell me which baggie weighs more….

              Because it’s not an arcane point of International Law, it’s fucking front and center (that’s why even I, a nuke naval officer, a 117 day wonder, had it appear in my three week course on International Law). And the vast majority of people judge governments by their adherence to both laws and the principles of good governance.

              I am an anarchist, and few people are bigger foes of giving the state a pass on its crimes than I, and even I understand the wise point John is making.

              1. An anarchist who is more worried about ‘our’ ‘responsibilities’ under ‘international law’ than our government trying to Reconstruct another nation half way across the world to the tune of billions of dollars and thousands of lives

                It is to laugh!

                1. An anarchist who is more worried about ‘our’ ‘responsibilities’ under ‘international law’ than our government trying to Reconstruct another nation half way across the world to the tune of billions of dollars and thousands of lives

                  Your colossal and complete failure at reading comprehension is noted.

                  Do me a favor and quit law school, or at a minimum stick to transactional law, because you have all the signs of being to the courtroom what the Montreal Expos were to the baseball diamond.

                  1. Game. Set. Match to Tarran.

                    Although, I’d be more inclined to suggest he take an in-house counsel job, hiring outside experts to do the heavy lifting.

                    1. Another acknowledged Republican weighs in in agreement with our ‘anarchist.’

                      Of course.

                    2. Yeah, Botard, the only reason someone could possibly object to your argument that it is okay to intervene, just as long as you leave the place in ruins to be taken over by jihadists, is that they’re a neocon plant.

                      Just a piece of advice, if you do pass the bar, which is something I’m finding an increasingly dubious prospect, don’t go into litigation. You’re just not that bright and your arguments don’t convince anyone but yourself.

                    3. A neocon plant? You’re an admitted Republican, and it’s natural for you to try to say a debacle your side supported is not as bad as one the other side did. But it’s like a Dem pointing to Medicare D as being as bad as the ACA.

                    4. I’m pretty sure that first debacle had widespread support from both TEAM’s.

                    5. You’re an admitted Republican, and it’s natural for you to try to say a debacle your side supported is not as bad as one the other side did.

                      It’s a fucking party registration, not Bill’s life’s work. Nothing about being part of the R or D party requires throwing truth out the window simply because it is inconvenient to one’s fortunes.

                      The fact that you hold this view says nothing good about you, Bo.

                  2. Aside from your general non response, you do know the Expos (now the Nationals) have made the playoffs a couple times in the past several years?

                    1. But if you want to respond to my actual point rather than emotionally lash out because I noted a glaring oddity in your ostensible anarchism, answer my point: what type of anarchist cares a fig about ‘our responsibilities under international law’ as opposed to the criteria of government spending and involvement in other nation’s affairs?

                    2. What sort of non-iterventionist thinks it’s okay to get involved in another country’s civil wars, just as long as you leave the place in ruins to be taken over by jihadists?

                    3. I don’t think it’s OK, if you read my comments I say it was a debacle and mistake in its own right. But being a non interventionist I judge any interventions badness on the level and scope of the intervention. That’s not very remarkable.

                    4. Because dismantling a government and leaving chaos is much less interventionist than providing security thereafter.

                      But, it’s nice to know you’re the sort of “libertarian” who supports war crimes.

                    5. You’re laughable Bill.

                      I support no intervention, but I weigh the relative badness of any by the level and scope of the intervention. Yes, I do not use the criteria of ‘international law’ to judge them, I use traditional non interventionist values.

                    6. Yes, I do not use the criteria of ‘international law’ to judge them, I use traditional non interventionist values.

                      “Non-interventionist values” that sanction war crimes.

                      And you’re calling me laughable.

                      I think we all get what your argument is here. “Sure Obama’s Libya intervention was wrong. BUT BUSH’S INTERVENTION WAS WRONGER!!!1ONE!”

                      And you wonder why people think you’re a progressive stooge.

                    7. There’s some incredible, anxiety tinged projection here!

                    8. Well, given you were the first to question people’s libertarian bona fides, I’d suggest you simply stop projecting, Botard.

                    9. Did you not notice that I started this by calling out PB on his ‘yeah but Iraq!’ comments? In doing so I had to admit that in terms of intervention Iraq was worse but that that doesn’t matter in determining Obama’s intervention was a total failure.

                      John is a Republican who supported the Iraq War. He’s got an interest in making the Other Team’s debacle look worse than his Team’s. He based his argument on this point of international law. That’s nice, but I base my criteria on noninterventionist values. That’s hardly remarkable on a libertarian, noninterventionist web site. My only question was why tarran, a self described anarchist, would use that criteria too. For yet another Republican to jump in on the importance of Johns criteria is, IMO, more evidence of the in congruence of tartans choice (if you walk and talk like this R, and that R, and this other R…).

                    10. Shorter BO: But BOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!

                    11. And John’s point was that bombing a country and leaving it to chaos is DEMONSTRABLY worse than an occupation. Whether or not you agree with us doing either one of those.

                    12. answer my point: what type of anarchist cares a fig about ‘our responsibilities under international law’ as opposed to the criteria of government spending and involvement in other nation’s affairs?

                      One who lives in the real world, has a tyro’s knowledge of history and recognizes that the human institutions that we call governments cannot be dismissed airily or swept aside recklessly without worse things coming in their place.

                      You might find a discussion on the subject that I had with fyodor, RC Dean (a real lawyer you should seek to learn from), et al illuminating.

                    13. But why do you, as an anarchist, care or adopt that criteria? If you want to acknowledge it’s a ‘thing’ with a lot of people, sure. But why judge things by that criteria?

                    14. But why do you, as an anarchist, care or adopt that criteria?

                      Because I am opposed to oppression and violence, Bo, and hope that someday I or my descendants will get to experience living in a society where it is minimized.

                    15. I submit to you that oppression and violence are only exacerbated by interventions, and that the exacerbation is correlated with the size and scope of the intervention.

                    16. I submit to you that oppression and violence are only exacerbated by interventions, and that the exacerbation is correlated with the size and scope of the intervention.

                      And I submit that you are an unschooled idiot that is ignorant of history.

                      Guess which of us has more evidence that his assertion is correct?

                    17. Again, if you want to make the argument that interventions can address oppression and suffering, that’s fine. While libertarians tend to rather generally be against interventions some certainly support them at times. I think you’re wrong (rather let me say that the odds of an intervention making things better, not worse, are so bad IMO that as a general rule they should be avoided). But what I find amazing is that in weighing an intervention you would, as an anarchist, put so much value on ‘obligations under international war’ rather than ‘cost of intervention and scope of governmental action.’ Would you admit that libertarian anarchists are rarely characterized by their deep sense of obligation to international law?

                    18. Would you admit that libertarian anarchists are rarely characterized by their deep sense of obligation to international law?

                      What is this, high school? I should worry about what other anarchists’ think lest they cast me out of their clique?!?

                      Are you really that shallow that you think an argument to popularity is fucking meaningful?

                      Let’s turn it around and adopt it to the point I am making:

                      Bo Cara Esquire, would you admit that most lawyers are rarely characterized by their dismissive and contemptuous attitude towards the government obeying the law?

                      See how vacuous that is?

                      My point, and I am dumbing it down to a level that I would use to explain it to a 6 year old is in what I hope is not a vain attempt to get you to see my point

                      Governments that obey the law are generally less oppressive and destructive than ones that wantonly disregard them. Governments that choose which laws they follow based solely on the convenience of the rulers tend to be particularly bad.

                      The body of international law that John is referring to was the product of bitter lessons learned over two centuries of warfare and is purposed to make the lives of noncombatants less unbearable. And while you and John Yoo may think that the paper that the Geneva Conventions were written are only useful when it gives answers you like, I recognize the ills the people who drafted them were trying to avoid and the insights produced by their personal experience of these horrors.

                    19. Would you admit that libertarian anarchists are rarely characterized by their deep sense of obligation to international law?

                      Anarchists that actually do cite international law in the limiting of individual states’ power, do so because it’s an example of law created in an anarchic hierarchy. The 192+ states of the world are in a state of anarchy vis a vis each other, yet in compliance with everyone’s best interest a system of law has emerged through bilateral and multinational cooperation.

            3. As a noninterventionist I judge these matters not on arcane precepts of international law but the level of intervention.

              This is one of those Bo-sentences that qualifies for the title Great Sentence of Genius. International law exists for a reason, and blithely violating it based on a “level of intervention” is idiotic. “Level of intervention” is a horrible proxy for what should be examined, which is rationality of the intervention in question (which is logically independent from the “level” of this intervention).

              WWII is an overused analogy, but an appropriate one in this case: this war had what could be called a high “level of intervention”, would you not agree? Examining it based on this one (difficult to define) variable tells us nothing about whether this “level” was appropriate or rational; the history of the conflict as well as our own intuitions and logic RE: morality of violence are what inform us on such matters.

              1. I have to admit that I am impressed in Bo’s ability to unite people – whose disparate views regularly place them at each others’ throats – by issuing bizarre, pompous pronouncements that leave them all uniformly appalled.

          2. Why should anyone care about International Law, least of all libertarians?

        3. You may be devoted to occupations and nation building John, but it’s hard for me to square with my small government aims.

          Are you this dishonest or just this dense? The point is not what you think of the occupation. The point is that you can’t intervene and then not occupy. Not occupying and leaving the place to chaos is worse than occupying and trying to fix it. That is the point.

          If you don’t like occupations, good for you. You dislike of them argues against intervention not for intervening and then leaving the place to chaos.

        4. But, that’s an argument for not intervening in others’ civil wars in the first place, not for intervening then walking away.

          And given Mr. Obama had the fairly recent experience in Iraq to draw a lesson from, he probably had even less of an excuse than Mr. Bush.

        5. Actually, if you had read his previous posts, he specifically said we shouldn’t have intervened at all.

          1. John has said repeatedly he supported the Iraq War.

            1. Except the topic here isn’t Iraq. It is Libya. Do try to focus.

              1. The topic is Libya and then Iraq was brought up.

                Try to keep up indeed

            2. I’m sorry, I meant previous post on this story.

              And as I scrolled back up to the comment where he said we shouldn’t have intervened (in Libya, which is what we are talking about), I realized it was timestamped at 11:43 which would have made it a little hard for you to read it before your 11:23 post.

    3. Why do you insist on arguing against straw men? Do you know libertarians to be supportive of the Iraq War? We were right about the ill-advised adventure in Libya, in Syria and in IRAQ. Unlike you who is Team Blue incarnate, we have no blood on our hands to atone for.

      1. See John, right above

        1. John is a libertarian?

          1. No, but he’s a regular around here and hardly alone on his sentiments. That’s likely who PB is referring to

        2. I am not arguing for intervention. You are just pretending I am because you can’t win the argument and putting up a strawman is all you can do.

  7. “I had placed a great deal of emphasis on the demonstration effects of an intervention. My hope had been that the intervention would act to restrain other autocrats from unleashing deadly force against protesters and encourage wavering activists to push forward in their demands for change.”

    Seriously?!?! What the fuck is Lynch smoking?

  8. I’m still mad that Archer is changing the show over this. Why should Archer change? The terrorists are the ones that suck.

    1. Explain, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

        1. This is only somewhat like that old Gypsy woman said!

        2. Oh that sucks. Totally stupid. The writers could have a freakin’ field day! It practically writes itself!

    2. +1 Great Minds Think Alike

      I made the exact same joke/reference when my brother gave me the news about it.

  9. And this lays bare the biggest sin of the Obama administration:

    Their pride and hubris in all things.

    In every instance where a voice cried out that they were making a mistake, they dismissively and mockingly disregarded the warnings.

    They saw all the laws and customs that restrained them not as a check on them making a mistake, but impediments to be swept away.

    And when their actions went awry, rather than stepping back and soberly reconsidering what they were doing, and being prepared to publicly accept rebukes or to acknowledge error, they frantically tried to negate criticism by ever more dramatic actions. Each act of denial led to more problems and divergence of reality from their vision, necessitating ever more frantic attempts to distort and alter reality.

    And I see no sign that they are capable of learning the error of their ways.

    1. And I see no sign that they are capable of learning the error of their ways.

      At this point, what dif…aw fuck it

  10. Isn’t Derna the city Jefferson had taken in his War with the Barbary Pirates?

    1. Why yes it was:

      The turning point in the war was the Battle of Derna (April?May 1805). Ex-consul William Eaton, a former Army captain who used the title of “general”, and US Marine Corps First Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon led a force of eight U.S. Marines,[32] 500 mercenaries?Greeks from Crete, Arabs, and Berbers?on a march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt to assault and to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time in history the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. The action is memorialized in a line of the Marines’ Hymn?”the shores of Tripoli”.[33]

      1. I thought so. What a huge symbol of the whole debacle.

    2. Hmm, I’ll say it:

      you know who else seized Derna?

        1. Why, yes. But you know who else?

          1. The Italian army in 1911?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..g_in_Libya

            1. Why, yes. But you know who else?

              1. The British, then the Italo-German, then the British again in the Mediterranean Campaign?

          2. Montgomery?

            1. Eventually.

      1. Jeff Goldblum?

        Sorry, my mistake, that was Laura Dern.

      2. Godsmack? No that was Sully Erna.

  11. Was anybody aware that there is actual fighting going on in Mali still? I read an article about Ebola in the capital, Bamako, and what was most interesting to me was that some of the people under quarantine were battle-wounded UN peacekeepers that were in the same treatment center as a guy who died of Ebola.

    Holy shit, right? I’ve hardly seen any stories on what a shitstorm the Maghreb apparently is right now.

    1. Wow, talk about a terrible life: in the midst of a brutal war and super plague.

    2. I hadn’t heard anything about their civil war since the Tauregs turned against the Islamists and allied with the government to get them out of the towns the Tauregs had liberated.

    3. The Islamists take pot shots but they’re not really going anywhere.

  12. Regardless of what we do, if we intervene or not, Islamic terrorism will expand throughout the world.

    There are too many feuds and politics in that region for any of the Muslim powers to intervene, plus their militaries are too week.

    Europe doesn’t want the job and couldn’t do it anyway. Russia has their own Muslim problem and are content to watch and sell arms.

    And the Middle East is failing economically and politically, so they are going to create generations of young men and women who have no hope and no voice, and getting back to pure Islam with a gun sounds pretty good to them.

    1. Islam is precisely the problem.

      1. There are Islamic nations that don’t seem to have the same problems, so I’d say that generalization doesn’t seem accurate

        1. The degree to which ‘Islamic nations’ don’t have these problems are the degree to which they are unIslamic.

          1. That’s a nice un falsifiable idea

            1. Is it truly? I suspect there exists a strong correlation between levels of religious fundamentalism and levels of sectarian violence, and especially in Islamic countries where the predominate religious philosophy is one of total statist submission of individuals.

    2. What will they wind up with? A whole bunch of states wanting to be sovereign, defended by militias?

  13. They saw all the laws and customs that restrained them not as a check on them making a mistake, but impediments to be swept away.

    And when their actions went awry, rather than stepping back and soberly reconsidering what they were doing, and being prepared to publicly accept rebukes or to acknowledge error, they frantically tried to negate criticism by ever more dramatic actions. Each act of denial led to more problems and divergence of reality from their vision, necessitating ever more frantic attempts to distort and alter reality.

    Nice.

  14. America has created isis so ourselves into the whole world into a problem.

    http://www.kapital3.org:8080/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.