War

Obama Official Still Defends Doctrine That Led to Disastrous Libya Strikes

Anne-Marie Slaughter hasn’t given up on intervention and the “responsibility to protect” doctrine.

|

Former Obama administration official Anne-Marie Slaughter defended the "responsibility to protect" doctrine—and the military intervention in Libya it led to—at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.

She also claimed to have spoken out against the intervention in Libya when it went too far, although she was a vocal supporter of the U.S.-led war effort at its beginning and end.

Slaughter, a longtime proponent of the idea that states have a duty to stop crimes against humanity in other states by force, served as director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2011. Soon after leaving office, she publicly pushed the Obama administration to intervene to protect Libyan civilians amid an ongoing uprising.

President Barack Obama cited Slaughter's doctrine as a reason to launch military strikes against Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi in March 2011. After Gadhafi was ousted, Libya fell under the rule of armed militias, eventually resulting in the Second Libyan Civil War, which killed thousands of Libyans and was ongoing until last October.

Slaughter doubled down on her support for humanitarian intervention on Wednesday while addressing the House Foreign Affairs Committee alongside several other veteran diplomats.

"It's a doctrine that's going to evolve a great deal over this century. I think it is the right doctrine, but it can easily be used in the wrong ways," she said.

Slaughter added that "one of the lessons" of the past few years has been "that we need intervention much further upstream" to prevent armed conflict.

She was responding to a question by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) about the effects of humanitarian intervention.

"For a long time, you have been one of the most vocal champions of the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine and so-called humanitarian intervention," Omar said. "I am under no illusion about the Taliban or Gadhafi or [Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein. But I am also under no illusion about how those countries look today."

"Maybe there was a sense of moral righteousness about our interventions there, but there should be more clarity about what the consequences have been," the Minnesota* congresswoman added.

Slaughter responded that the Iraq War had little to do with responsibility to protect—and did not mention the Taliban or the war in Afghanistan—but defended her stance on Libya.

"I strongly supported intervention on the grounds of responsibility to protect because it looked like the Libyan people in Benghazi were facing genocide—crimes against humanity," Slaughter said.

In March 2011, the Libyan government had lost control of Benghazi to armed rebels, and pro-Gadhafi forces were gearing up for a counteroffensive to retake the city. Gadhafi himself had promised to fight "house by house" and show "no mercy or compassion" to the rebels.

The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on March 17, 2011, authorizing foreign militaries to use any means short of an occupation to protect Libyan civilians. The United States and its allies began an air campaign against pro-Gadhafi forces two days later. Several countries eventually sent military advisers to assist the opposition.

Gadhafi was captured and tortured to death by rebels in October 2011 near the end of the First Libyan Civil War. Years of unrest and a second civil war followed.

The post-Gadhafi unrest in Libya became an international proxy war involving sectarian militias, mercenary forces, and advanced military hardware. Libyans even witnessed the resurrection of slave markets.

The U.N.-recognized government in Tripoli and the forces of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar signed a ceasefire in October 2020 and finally agreed to a unity government earlier this month.

Slaughter acknowledged that U.S. intervention had the potential to cause chaos. "We cannot engage in armed interventions for the responsibility to protect if we do not have both a plan and a commitment…to support whatever government emerges over the long haul," she said.

And she claimed to have spoken out when the U.S.-led war effort in Libya went too far.

"I actually wrote during the intervention in Libya when it became clear that arms were pouring into the country—and it became clear that this was not just responsibility to protect, this was going to overthrow Gadhafi—we were setting the country up, and particularly the women and children in the country, for decades of violence," Slaughter told Congress.

She had indeed warned in a July 2011 article for The Financial Times that "stopping the fighting now is more important than an opposition victory on the current terms advocated by the National Transitional Council in Benghazi" because Libya was risking "a cycle of radicalisation and entrenchment that makes it progressively harder rather than easier to reach a settlement."

But Slaughter wrote a month later that critics were proven wrong.

"The sceptics must now admit that the real choice in Libya was between temporary stability and the illusion of control, or fluidity and the ability to influence events driven by much larger forces," she wrote for the same publication in August 2011. "Libya proves the west can make those choices wisely after all."

CORRECTION: This piece previously described Rep. Ilhan Omar as a Michigan congresswoman. She is actually from Minnesota.

NEXT: Debris Represents the Crumbling Leftovers of X-Files Rip-offs

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. “I swear the fish was this big!”

      1. I was thinking she was thinking something was this big…

        1. Fish is a code word of course.

            1. ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
              I basically make about $8,000-$12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work aboutQEu 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it copy below web.

              COPY HERE———->> GoOgLE CaSh 1

              1. I get paid 140 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however BVGT my old buddy is gaining 65000$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

                Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HERE

              2. I get paid 140 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65000$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

                Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HERE

    2. “You don’t like my slaughter doctrine? Come at me, bro. No, on Twitter. I will block your ass.”

    3. “Eh, what are you gonna do?”

      1. got that too. like “hey, he didn’t tell me he was your husband whaddya want?”

    4. The bread box would need to be this big for it to fit inside.

    5. “Beats the shit outta me!”

      1. Start working from home! Great job for everyone! stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection…Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom…mklo You can have your first check by the end of this week…

        Lifetime Opportunity This is what I do—— ONLINE-JOBS-USA

    6. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working HYJ online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

  1. what’s in a name?

    1. I shit you not at my high school the Social Studies department was made up of guys named Maimer, Slaughter, and Baron. And Eisloeffel, which is funny in context if you speak any German.

  2. I wonder how many of the people who believe in this doctrine also like to complain about military spending.

    1. All of ’em.

    2. I wonder how many people who oppose this doctrine were more worried about mean tweets the last election.

  3. I couldn’t believe Michelle’s cock was this much bigger than Barack’s!

  4. “humanitarian intervention”

    What’s so humanitarian about a bunch of dead people (some ‘of color’)?

    1. Restricting immigration from countries that export terrorism is racist. Bombing those countries is humanitarian. Duh.

      1. Excellent.

  5. It should be noted that the Libyan revolution would have happened with or without our participation.

    The Libyan people were in open rebellion anyway; the Qataris would have invaded anyway; the British and French would have provided air support anyway–with or without our participation.

    Oh, and Obama’s decision not to send in ground troops was the right decision to make anyway.

    Blaming U.S. participation for things that happened in Libya that would have happened even without our participation is fundamentally irrational.

    1. US participation proved that the absolute last thing any regime should do is give us their WMDs

      1. Not really. Not anymore than invading Iraq under the pretense of Saddam having WMD–despite the fact that he didn’t have any meaningful stockpiles to speak of–made having WMD worse. Not anymore than Obama changing his mind about his silly red line in Syria made any difference in that regard either.

        Invading a country because they do or don’t have WMD–by itself–was never a good justification for war. Even if Saddam Hussein had possessed WMD, that wouldn’t have been a good reason to squander all that money and all those lives–and put us in a strategically worse position than we were in before in regards to Iran.

        Whether or not someone posses WMD has never been a good criteria. It’s one consideration among many.

        1. He’s talking about how Qaddafi relinquished his nuclear weapons program and allowed inspectors in to verify under an agreement entered with the Bush administration. That was exactly the kind of thing we’d like to see, formerly hostile nations becoming less hostile and nuclear weapons becoming less common, all without firing a shot. And then We Came, We Saw, He Died, and now Kim Jong Un is sleeping far more peacefully tonight knowing he made the right choice to hang on to his nukes.

          1. Any country that looks at the U.S. turning on Gaddafi after he capitulated on his nuclear program and thinks that they should maintain their nuclear program for fear that the United States will turn on them once they capitulate is misreading the situation.

            The excruciating pains that Iran and North Korea have put their people through over their refusal to abandon their nuclear aspirations are remarkable for their intensity and duration. All that pain would go away if they abandoned their nuclear programs–and it wouldn’t make them any more vulnerable than they are already.

            The only reason Iran and North Korea can withstand that pain is because they’re totalitarian societies. It isn’t because they want to capitulate but they’re afraid the United States might turn on them once they do. They could make the pain go away any time they want by abandoning their programs–without making themselves any more vulnerable to us than they are right now. Why don’t they? Being a totalitarian society means maintaining that kind of belligerence. Being a totalitarian was the real threat to Gaddafi.

            The intentions of Iran and North Korea would be just as belligerent even if we’d made nice with Gaddafi, and Gaddafi could easily have ended up with his head on a pike anyway because of his totalitarianism. The United States will mostly leave you alone if you’re not a nuclear power and don’t get in the way. There’s a long list of powers like that, from Myanmar and Cuba on down the list.

            In what way are Iran and North Korea better off for having a nuclear program–if not to help pursue their hostile and belligerent goals? If they feared an invasion by the United States in the short term, they’d abandon their nuclear programs. Saddam Hussein would have been better off if he’d opened his country to weapons inspections, and Iran and North Korea would be better off for doing that, too.

            1. Daily Online Jobs ” has been a great platform for the only Trusted Way to start their online career by providing reliable online jobs. For joining you will only need a Laptop or Computer. Your daily work will be from 10 minutes to 60 minutes.CMs All the details of joining and working are already given in site with screenshots and video guides in home tabs. For any detail or problem you can contact us on our Facebook page.
              Visit our site today to join Online jobs in US & UK…. JOBS APP

        2. You’re wrong, and I don’t even know how you twist your thought process up to conclude that invading/bombing a country to take out WMDs they were erroneously thought to have leaves the same impression as invading/bombing a country that had only a few years earlier voluntarily given us their WMD program.
          It’s ok to be wrong, Ken.
          You get a lot right, but you kill you were wrong about Suleimani and you’re wrong here.
          It’s no coincidence Iran increased their efforts to develop nukes after the Libya invasion, just like it’s no coincidence that Un started shooting off rockets every other week after the Iran deal.

          1. “You’re wrong, and I don’t even know how you twist your thought process up to conclude that invading/bombing a country to take out WMDs they were erroneously thought to have leaves the same impression as invading/bombing a country that had only a few years earlier voluntarily given us their WMD program.”

            You used that “invading” word twice, and yet we didn’t send ground troops into Libya.

            We should get our troops the hell out of Syria as soon as possible, too.

            And I don’t understand why you keep assuming that whether there was a war in Libya was up to the United States. If we had done nothing, the outcome might have been the same. The other likely possibility was a drawn out never ending conflict like Syria. The option where we get to not have a war in Syria wasn’t one of the options. That was not our decision to make. It was happening with us or without us. Deal with that.

            1. “The option where we get to not have a war in Syria [Libya] wasn’t one of the options. That was not our decision to make. It was happening with us or without us.”

              —-Ken Shultz

              Fixed!

            2. “And I don’t understand why you keep assuming that whether there was a war in Libya was up to the United States. If we had done nothing, the outcome might have been the same. The other likely possibility was a drawn out never ending conflict like Syria. The option where we get to not have a war in Syria wasn’t one of the options. That was not our decision to make. It was happening with us or without us. Deal with that.”

              That isn’t the question, Ken.
              If Qatar and France and the UK want to bomb Libya, fine. Not our call, like you said.
              What was our call was US participation in the destruction of a cooperative regime that had fulfilled every obligation it had in the deal we made with it.

              It’s a carrot and stick issue.
              Betraying Qaddafi eliminated the carrot half of the equation for all future “rogue” regimes.
              If Un or Tehran give up their WMD programs, they can expect to be toppled and brutally executed within a decade.
              They have no incentive to act any differently than they currently are acting, because doing what’s best for their people would mean leadership’s personal, quite painful, destruction.
              That is the lesson of Libya.
              2+2=4

              1. “What was our call was US participation in the destruction of a cooperative regime that had fulfilled every obligation it had in the deal we made with it.”

                I appreciate that there are downsides associated with participating, and my biggest one is the unconstitutional aspect. However, whatever downsides there are associated with participating, they don’t include the war itself. The war itself would have happened anyway, and Gaddafi might have held out in the ruins like Assad, but he might have ended up with his head on a pike anyway–even if the U.S. hadn’t participated.

                Pardon me if I assumed that you, or other people in this conversation, were arguing that the war wouldn’t have happened if the United States weren’t involved, but if you guys don’t think that, you’re unusual in that regard. Lots of other people seem to think that if the United States hadn’t provided logistical support, the chaos that followed wouldn’t have happened–and that’s just not so.

      2. The one question that should have been considered–and hopefully someone asked this person–is whether what Obama did was constitutional.

        “The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on March 17, 2011, authorizing foreign militaries to use any means short of an occupation to protect Libyan civilians.”:

        The Constitution requires Congress to declare war–regardless of what the UN Security Council says–and I don’t see where Barack Obama bothered with that.

        At the time, McCain and the other necons in the Republican party were excoriating Obama for refusing to send in ground troops, and the authorization for war almost certainly would have included verbiage requiring Obama to use ground troops.

        The troops we sent in after the war was over was a terrible mistake, and If Obama had sent in ground troops during the war, we’d almost certainly still be there today. That’s why they call them quagmires. They’re hard to get out of. The best way to get out of them is to never go in.

        Obama did something right once in eight years. Broken clocks tell perfect time twice a day.

        1. “Obama did something right once in eight years.”

          . . . and even then, it was unconstitutional.

        2. Bombing Libya wasn’t right just because Obama didn’t send troops.
          You’re displaying truly chemjeffian level thought on Libya, man.
          Get your shit together.

          1. I didn’t say he was right because he sent troops.

            I said Obama was right not to send troops.

            1. Read more carefully.
              Yes, Obama was correct in not sending troops to occupy Libya.
              And Obama was absolutely incorrect ordering US participation in the overthrow of Qaddafi.

        3. Seriously – what the fuck did the US have to gain taking military action in Libya to oust Qaddafi?

          1. Iirc Libya had recently been selling oil to the Europeans in exchange for Euros and not dollars.

            1. ^

            2. Yea, I’ve read he wanted to set up a pan African currency too.
              Betraying our agreement with a regime that had cooperated with our demands to turn over their WMD program probably wasn’t the best way of dealing with that issue.

              1. Yea, I’ve read he wanted to set up a pan African currency too.

                That one wasn’t going to happen, though. IIRC, Francophone Africa already has a common currency, and Anglophone Africa wants no part of it, since no Francophone African country has an economy that isn’t semi-permanently in the toilet.

          2. Once again, the Qataris were going in regardless. The Libyans were rising up regardless. The British and the French were providing air support regardless–of whether we became involved. Whether to launch a revolution wasn’t our decision to make. If they were going to have a revolutionary war with or without us, however, it was important to make sure that the right side won–and having the war end faster was better than, say, tens years of a Syrian war type situation.

            The biggest problem with Libya was that Gaddafi’s regime was making life so difficult for average people, that it was becoming impossible for average people to have a decent life just minding their own business–and that’s why Libya became a gigantic source of jihadis all over the world. Even going back to the days of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, before the end of the Cold War, Libya was a huge source of jihadis for Islamic fundamentalists. They were a huge source of jihadis in Afghanistan.

            Disaffected white kids in southern California used to become skinheads. Disaffected kids in southcentral Los Angeles used to become crips and bloods. Disaffected kids in Colombia used to join the cartels. And disaffected Libyans used to become Jihadis.

            Whatever process Libya needed to go through in order to normalize its society so that average people can live average lives and support a family, that process could only get started once Gaddafi was no longer in power. You can’t have that kind of oppression on such a wide scale for so long without creating a never ending stream of jihadis in the world. The process of normalization takes time. Hell, Russia still hasn’t recovered from the end of the Cold War either, but the process of normalization can’t even get started until the totalitarians are no longer in power.

            There can be no normal society under the Kims in North Korea for the same reason, and if it were in the best interests of U.S. security to help a home grown revolution against the Kims, we should seriously consider offering air support logistics. It might even go the same way in Iran. If the people of Iran rise up against the vicious dictators who are oppressing them, I’ll be rooting for the revolutionaries–and arguing that we have no business sending American troops in.

            1. Libya had one of if not the highest standard of living in all of Africa. When Gaddafi was in charge.

              1. “The economy of Libya depends primarily on revenues from the petroleum sector, which represents over 95% of export earnings and 60% of GDP.[13] These oil revenues and a small population have given Libya one of the highest nominal per capita GDP in Africa.[14][13]”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Libya

                Oil driven economies give you funky numbers because oil can create a tremendous amount of wealth with a relatively small population. Libya was registering $12,064 US in GDP per capita in 2010, but almost all of that oil revenue was going to Gaddafi and his cronies. If you weren’t one of Gaddafi’s cronies, you might take 60% of that GDP per capita away. And oil wasn’t the only industry dominated by Gaddafi and his cronies.

                1. High rate of housing. High level of literacy. Decent healthcare for the region. Low level of food insecurity. Citizens got a big oil money payment in 2011 from oil money. And no national debt. He was a dictator. And profited from that. In 20 years, someone in the west will write an honest account and some will view him with some sympathy.

            2. So Ken going all in on “humanitarian” intervention… regardless of consequences.

              1. In fairness, I think what he’s arguing is that US participation made no real difference one way or the other, on which I think he’s probably right. Both the European and Gulf powers had their own reasons for wanting Qaddafi gone, and the US sitting it out wasn’t going to stop what was already happening.

                But in the end I agree that the US still shouldn’t have participated, and should instead have condemned the European and Gulf Council interference in an internal civil war.

                1. US participation made a huge difference.
                  Not in Libya, but very much in Tehran and Pyongyang.

                2. And it was unconstitutional.

                  The reason we participated may have been largely because Obama didn’t want to be left out. It would have looked bad if the British, French, and Qataris has won without us, and it would have looked bad if Gaddafi had managed to massacre the people of Benghazi despite the efforts of our allies–while Obama stood by and did nothing.

                  Obama may not have participated for the reasons I gave–at least not primarily. Obama, like the rest of the world, may have been moved by the Libyans peaceful protest movement, too. There’s something about turning the other cheek that can really force people’s hands.

                  If you want me to make a case for providing logistical support in the air that the British and French lacked, however, I can make that case. It is possible that Obama did the right thing for the wrong reasons. His inclination to not send in troops was good. If that led him to not bother seeking an authorization to go to war, that was bad.

                  I won’t condone violating the separation of powers, but within the context of whether Congress should have authorized him to offer logistical support to our allies in the air, I would argue that Congress should have authorized that. Unfortunately, the warmongering neocons in Congress at the time wanted more than Obama did. That’s not an excuse for violating the constitution, but it is an explanation.

                  1. This is a really dumb hill to die on, Ken.

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_domestic_reactions_to_the_2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

                    On June 3, 2011, the United States House of Representatives passed H.Res. 292. The resolution stated the “President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale” for the military campaign in Libya, and said the “President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger” and gave him, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General 14 days to explain his strategy in Libya and to convince Congress the attacks are justified by U.S. interests.[2]

                    Another resolution voted on the same day, H.Con.Res. 51, and co-sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, ordered Obama to withdraw forces from Libya. It failed 148–265.[3] The resolution was supported by 87 Republicans, highlighting a party shifting toward non-interventionism.[4][5]

                    Later in the month, a resolution introduced in the Senate by Jim Webb and Bob Corker required the White House to seek Senate and House approval before continuing the mission, while also seeking a ban on U.S. ground troops in the operation. Another resolution introduced by John Kerry and John McCain, and co-sponsored by Carl Levin,[6] sought to approve of the mission, but was facing abandonment, with reports indicating a fracture was occurring within the chamber.[7][8][9][10]

                    On June 3, the House passed a resolution 268–145 offered by Speaker John A. Boehner, calling for a withdrawal of the United States military from the air and naval operations in and around Libya. It demanded that the administration provide, within 14 days, detailed information about the nature, cost and objectives of the American contribution to the NATO operation, as well as an explanation of why the President did not come to Congress for permission to continue to take part in the mission.[11]

                    On June 13, the House passed another resolution 248–163 prohibiting the use of funds for operations in the conflict, with 110 Democrats and 138 Republicans voting in favor.[12][13] On June 14, Walter Jones (R-NC) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced a lawsuit against the Obama administration, joined by 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats.[14][15]

                    On June 24, the House rejected Joint Resolution 68, which would have provided the Obama administration with authorization to continue military operations in Libya for up to one year.[16][17] The majority of Republicans voted against the resolution, while Democrats were split, with 115 in favor of military involvement and 70 against.[18] Despite its failure to obtain legal approval from Congress, the Obama administration continued to provide the bulk of the military support for the NATO operation until the overthrow of Gadaffi in October. Before the official termination of Operation Unified Protector, US Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo Daalder said that “the United States led in this operation… It led in the planning of the operation, it led in getting the mandate for the operation, and it led in the execution of the operation… the United States conducted more sorties than any other country in this operation, twenty six percent.”[19]

                  2. It was both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid.
                    Why you’re saying Obama made a “good” decision just because he “just” ordered bombing is beyond me, but you have your conclusion that you think is makes a salient point, and we all know you will cling to that conclusion with your dying breath.
                    It’s hilarious, and frustrating.

                    As for Obama’s motivations, they don’t justify a damn thing. All they do is prove him foolish and surrounded by incompetent advisors.
                    But hey, at least Libya has open slave markets now.

              2. Nardz in an alternate universe:

                “Obama is the worst president ever for doing nothing about the massacre in Libya!”

    2. I’m not so sure. I can’t speak to whether the people of Libya would have started rebelling without the Obama administration’s tacit support of the Muslim Brotherhood, but I’m quite sure that Britain and France wouldn’t have provided air support without American backing. They wouldn’t even have been capable of it. Besides American combat jets doing most of the bombing, it was also American tankers fueling those British and French jets, it was American ISR that was directing those British and French jets, and it was American bombs that those British and French jets were dropping after they ran out of their own stockpiles within a couple of days.

      1. “I’m quite sure that Britain and France wouldn’t have provided air support without American backing.”

        I believe that’s an established fact.

        Obama may have helped them with their logistics for that reason alone–he didn’t want the British and French doing anything without us. It would make him look like a weak leader.

        They were going in without us. They would not stand idly by and watch the people of Benghazi get massacred. Among other things, Obama was sensitive to what might happen if he did nothing and the Libyan army managed to massacre the people of Benghazi despite British and French efforts to stop it. It would look like he was responsible for the massacre.

        1. he didn’t want the British and French doing anything without us. It would make him look like a weak leader

          I think you’re dead-nuts on.

        2. The war boners might blame him. How many hang the war crimes of the Yugoslav wars on Clinton?

      2. I can’t speak to whether the people of Libya would have started rebelling without the Obama administration’s tacit support of the Muslim Brotherhood

        It seems to have been pretty much everyone outside of Tripoli who wanted Qaddafi gone (Libya being an artificial union of three entirely distinct kingdoms), including some of his own former generals, like Haftar (a staunch and ruthless enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood).

        Qaddafi’s chickens were coming home to roost. There wasn’t much likelihood of a different outcome for him at some point in the future.

  6. Maybe there was a sense of moral righteousness about our interventions there, but there should be more clarity about what the consequences have been,” the Michigan congresswoman added.

    One thing is always certain – American foreign policy is almost never interested in the consequences. Moral righteousness and perceived profitability are what is usually important going in.

  7. Perhaps the feds should “humanitarian-ly” intervene in California…. or Wyoming… or….

    1. China getting its money’s worth. If only we could get that level of service for all the billions we pour into that sinkhole.

  8. She can intervene all she wants. But she should fly her ass there on her dime and use equipment and arms that she purchased.

  9. Once dropped, it takes upwards of 45 seconds for the bombs to actually fall. It’s only once they hit the ground that there is death and destruction.

    Therefore, the bombing was mostly peaceful.

  10. I spent much of my long military career running around the Middle East. I never once felt like we were doing something good.
    As for Saddam having nukes, I could easily answer that question for you. It is well known, but only among a few. Why is that? Why is it that US civilians aren’t allowed to know the truth? I would love to tell you what happened, but then I would face jail time. The taxpayers paid for that debacle, they deserve to know. Why would the truth be a guarded secret? Why aren’t the American people informed?
    Having a top secret clearance just means that the US government will tell you the things that they keep secret from the American taxpayers. It has nothing to do with keeping secrets from the enemy. It keeps the military industrial complex running and you can’t ask what they are doing to whom. You only get to pay for it and suffer the consequences during the next 9/11.

  11. I spent much of my long military career running around the Middle East. I never once felt like we were doing something good.

    There was some ball-sniffing military article on the 30-year anniversary of Desert Storm with some delicious propaganda about how important “alliances” were to winning wars, and how it affected the “relationships” we still have there today.

    Yeah, no fucking shit–us staying there after the war directly led to Al-Qaeda’s reign of terror and 30 years of combat operations. The “alliances” piece directly overlooks the fact that the reason we had so much help from our “allies” was because they were looking to knock Sadaam off his perch–including Syria, which was probably doing it as a “fuck you” for Saddam beating their ally Iran in their 1980s conflict.

  12. “I strongly supported intervention on the grounds of responsibility to protect because it looked like the Libyan people in Benghazi were facing genocide—crimes against humanity,” Slaughter said.

    What about the Uyghurs? Shouldn’t we have already invaded China by now? Or at least drone-striked the shit out of them?

    Slaughter’s position/argument is not principled in any way – it’s fucking Machiavellian.

    1. Or Tibet. Or Crimea. To a lesser extent Chechnya and Dagestan.

    2. You can’t do any good until you can do every good?

      Small-minded people fixate on inconsistencies and hypocrisies. It brings them to absurd positions such as judging malicious neglect as better than an imperfect attempt to help.

  13. I hate obama, I hate biden

    1. Details? Or is Sean Hannity shoving a cattle prod into your amygdala enough?

  14. Thanks to Trumplicans, we are now no better than an Eastern European shithole with our very own anti-democratic violent rightwing movement. In addition to soiling the White House with a revolting incompetent psychopath, they took any reputation the US had as moral leader and took a giant moose shit on it. I thought Bush fucked this country’s image. How naive we were.

    Political leaders are harshly judged for ignoring genocides, so that’s why they don’t. Keep voting for Republicans and it will be this country that needs intervention.

  15. Hillary Clinton was excited. The audience was packed to overflow to hear an actual female President from Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto. After years in exile in the UK the socialist spoke perfect English, and she was here to explain her support of The Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
    The audience had no way of knowing 911 was coming as she moved to the microphone to a thunderous standing ovation after Hillary introduced her.
    Her talk was to explain her support of terror groups.

    The women sat enraptured, probably paying more attention to the fact she was a female socialist leader than what her words meant.
    She explained that she believed in manageable violence. That violence to a point if controlled could be as important as warfare. Only there was a twist.
    You no longer have to win a war to win. Victory was not necessary. Controlled violence, with no definition of victory, was a new form of low impact warfare.

    And that my friends is when trouble began.

    Bhutto like all socialists quickly learned socialism didn’t work and like all socialists before her who discovered that, from Cuba to China corruption took over on an unprecedented scale. Corruption on a massive scale. You had to pay to play in Pakistan, and the Taliban protected her from bribery charges in her “controlled violence” scenario.

    As she began to flaunt her wealth with $200,000 necklaces, the Taliban decided she was too uppity for their liking, even with her protection and support. A child wearing a suicide vest with explosives and ball bearings ran to her car firing bullets at her and then setting off the vest killing 22 and eventually her.

    Because once violence starts you can’t control it.

    The myth that violence can be managed and you no longer need victory began being reflected in Hillary’s statements. She would later even encourage an assassination team to kill Julian Assange while he was in an embassy. She fought for us to go into Libya and was given the gift by Obama. No longer were we fighting wars to win them. What had begun in Vietnam- the idea of a no win war that goes on for years to get money from defense industry lobbyists now had a philosophy.

    And if that isn’t evil, evil does not exist. Be seeing you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.