President Obama Addresses the Nation on Libya

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
March 28, 2011
President Obama Delivers Address to the Nation on Libya

President Obama spoke from the National Defense University on the situation in Libya, the actions taken with allies to protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Qaddafi, the transition to NATO command, and U.S. policy going forward. President Obama said:






"Last month, Qaddafi's grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, 'For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.'







































"Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you."

You can also read the President's remarks here, or watch the video here.



New Mexico, USA
March 29, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well folks, it would be pure speculation to debate what political stupidity Saddam Hussein would be involved in right now if the US lead coalition of nations hadn't removed him by force, but I would think that our president is probably thankful he doesn't have that idiot to contend with on his watch, along with all the other ethical infants he's got to contend with from a national and international security aspect to defeat and degrade their capacity to support terror globally.

If the President wishes to draw comparison with how Lybia is not like Iraq in taking a diplomatic rout to Ghaddafi "stepping down" , we tried that too in Iraq back in '91, when the "highway of death" back from Kuwait looked a lot like the road to Bengazi as the coalition raised hell with Ghaddfi's forces.

You saw the Shia rise up and get crushed in the aftermath because we didn't go the extra mile to remove Saddam then, and Pres. Clinton bombed him as well, but still he stayed in power up till the last president (Bush 43) had flat just had enough of his BS and terrorist ways.

President Obama did a real good job of presenting himself as a reasonable man who had seen his fill of Ghaddafi's and took action to put a stop to it in time to save a lot of people.

I applaud that, because every man must know his limits and be clear about them to keep the peace.

Just a cursory evaluation of all the misery Saddam caused for people after he was allowed to remain in power after '91 would bring 20/20 hindsight into focus to show folks just why it isn't a good idea to leave a tyrant in power in the first place, regardless of whether it's a real pain to go have to remove him unilaterally or not, and inevitably if the job isn't worth doing right the first time, it sure as hell isn't going to pay to have to get it done right a decade or more later.

The removal of Saddam wasn't a mistake, it was the correction of a mistake made not to "go all the way", where it concerned protecting populations.

I'm not saying the President is wrong in his handling of this situation, far from it, as he presented the case for intervention in much the same way as I have on Dipnote prior to action taken.

But I don't think he's going to find much wiggle room in a debate with me on where the mistake in Iraq actually can be found.

Depite all the sponsors of terror's best efforts, we're able to have withdrawn 100,000 troops on his watch because both his and the previous admin. worked real hard to get things right.

What I don't want to see (and I can't imagine the current president would either), is a repeat of that, where ten years hense we gotta put boots on the ground to remove Ghaddafi, because we failed to build international consensus to do so now.

Ultimately Ghaddafi will have to face the justice of his people, the justice potentially afforded by the ICC and associated UNSC resolutions separately calling for his removal and remading over to trial is the legal mechanism for the international community to do what the people as yet cannot, and the question of whether the internation coalition under NATO deems it in the interests of saving lives to implement such action to bring lasting peace in Lybia with a clear mandate and the cooperation and approval by Lybian opposition forces, will determine whether or not folks will repeat the mistake made in Iraq by leaving Saddam in power originally or not.

Frankly options are pretty limited if the thinking is we can do this without any boots on the ground, ( incl. Spec. opps "in and out" missions).

Either you make him a target or you don't, or pull a "snatch and grab", handing him over to opposition forces, so they can hand him over to the ICC, since the people demand prosecution on his head and their legal system's in tatters.

Maybe they won't be American boots, but it's a dirty job and sombody's got to do this if we're to see and end to the intent to commit violence directed at the Lybian people, no-fly zone or no.

It's one thing to pound the hardware into the dust, it's another to put a tyrant into the dusbin of history, and that's how this has got to end.

This issue is a bridge of realization best crossed sooner, rather than later.


March 29, 2011

Shannon in Canada writes:

I hope someone from the State Dept reads these posts. Please, I implore you, if there was ever a legitimate time to send in covert CIA operatives, now is the time. The Libyans do not have enough arms, training or coordination to topple Gadhafi on their own. Please quietly send someone to give the rebels some training and arms - then the Libyans will do the rest. Gadhafi will hang in the street, at the hands of his own people, as he should.

William S.
United States
March 31, 2011

William S. in the U.S.A. writes:

We have the capability to end Gadhafi but what keeps another just like him from taking his place? The rebels are ilequiped and can not hope to win with out help. To what length should any country particapate? Other than safeguarding civilians. An emergence of a democracy would be great! Is this what the majority in Libya want? I have no profound answers, only questions.

New Mexico, USA
March 31, 2011

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ William S., If I were try to offer some profound answer to your questions (chuckle), I'd say the people of Lybia would have to try real hard to come up with as bad or worse than Ghaddafi. He being a "one of a kind" lending new definition to the word "tyrant".

I think the fair thing is to assume they arn't so stupid as to allow any kind of repeat performance in the future, until proven otherwise.

Secondly, I think folks have to take their word on the fact that they have armed themselves in their own defense to obtain freedom and are in fact persuing a democratic ideal just as we would in America if our government ever tried to turn its arms against the public.

When folks have a resolution that calls for "all neccesary measures" that pretty well defines to what leangth any nation should participate.

Each to their own in bringing their capacity to the table to get things done right by the Lybian people in securing their peace and tranquility. Knowing that the people can't achieve any hope of persuing their own lives normally again while Ghaddafi remains in power.

If the coalition isn't as yet taking "regime replacement therapy" to the kinetic level yet, (IE "Ghaddafi is not a target.), one can definately rest assured that the Lybian people by and large are doing so at this point. Or trying to get out of the way of Ghaddafi's madness.

Now the coalition will either get on that buss together to remove him or it won't, and therin lies uncertainty for the Lybian people.

If we be encoraging Ghaddifi loyalists to abandon their loyalties and disobey Ghaddafi's orders, it stands in fairly strait up strategic logic that it behooves folks to also make sure those orders cannot be given for diplomacy to have to plead that case to disobey them.

This is where the "three D's" must work in unision, bringing total pressure to bear on Ghaddafi.

In the time it takes to try one diplomatic pressure tactic (sanction or otherwise) after another to no acertainable avail, for the forseeable future at the expense of lives and the peace folks have mandate to create (pride will not allow Ghaddafi to leave, unless in a body bag) , wheras the whole issue could be rendered moot in a moment by a well placed tomahawk.

I don't buy it when my government tells me "there isn't a military solution" to this.
See, in order to have a political solution, from a state of conflict, folks are going to have to find the former one first, or both at once.

That's generally how history writes these humanity's diary on the path to freedom.


Latest Stories