Hillary would have fixed that! Yessiree!
1
For Sale: World Leadership Position. 1945 model. Top line model, the most expensive ever made. Has seen hard use and upkeep is expensive but little actual mileage. All offers will be considered.
3
Obama took out Bin Laden too? And they still hate him? Who will Trump take out but the people he hires?
1
Another media article that leaves out important information that is important to the narrative. Can this be considered fake news?
Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, No. Korea, Honduras, Venezuela,Yemen, etc. were all problems before Trump took office.
3
You all remember Clinton saying "We came we saw he died" about Qaddafi she basically was saying Libya died.
6
You forgot the merry chuckles that accompanied those words.
But, BTW, Clinton was definitely not saying that Libya died. She was tooting her own horn for her signature foreign policy intervention, her own version of Trump's 'My button is bigger than yours', but actually carried out with the most brutal vanity.
3
What's with the NYT's fixation with cheerleading a more "muscular" US foreign policy. The fig leaf used to cover all this self interested disruption "democracy promotion" is getting a bit rich these days now that it has been pretty well establised that for at least the last 20 years the US is, in fact, functioning as a plutocracy. So... Just stay home. Really. Trust us your interventions in Vietnam. Iran, Honduras, Iraq Egypt, Libya, etc.. etc...etc... have not gone well for anyone involved including the US. Stay at home. Use the money to build some bridges and rail lines. Wait till you have something other than weapons and arms systems to sell or offer as "aid". Can the constant meddling as well. The world needs a break. After all "making the world safe for plutocracy" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
9
Sure, and take a back seat to Putin.
2
Three years ago, this headline would be "As Obama urges peace in Libya, a sovereign nation, Russia offers to help"
1
I guess Hilary should have thought of that when she sold Obama a war in Libya. Apparently, Bush's disastrous adventure in Iraq wasn't an obvious warning.
5
Trump has been a disaster for our foreign policy.
2
???? Huh? Now people like you are going to blame Trump for a policy disaster in Libya hatched during the Obama Administration? Remember Obama's phrase related to Llibya: "Leading from behind"? Remember the killing of Ambassador Stevens and American security personnel in Benghazi? I'm guessing you don't have Alzheimers. Trump was a TV star then ... not president. The guy's got his problems., but don't allow hysterical Trump Derangement Syndrome to make things even worse. Give it a try.
3
Not a single new war in 1 year! This is an accomplishment! If he reserves to barking only he will become my favorite president in spite of the fact that I voted against him.
1
For those in need of a history lesson: Libya was 'a problem' long before Obama.
Reagan in the 80's and Bush & Cheney in the '90's were attempting to deal with Libya, unsuccessfully. Pan Am Flt 103 was taken down by Libyan terrorists in '88, killing all 270 onboard.
Historically, Libya is said to have been 'a problem' for 200 yrs. Unlikely one president or one secretary of state in a term or two is going to get it all taken care of.
Just wandering why did the writer consistently ommitt the fact that the "UN recognized" government in west Lybia, is in fact an Islamist leaning regime and un-elected?! Isn't one of their ministers a participant in the US ambassador's massacre?.. I'm not a general but I wouldn't support a chemically armed Islamist militia everytime the Russians are on the otherside! America should learn this lesson for the fourth time, Islamists are not your friends..
2
What? Saudis are not our friends anymore?
May be Trump is o.k. not doing anything in Libya.
We don't understand Middle East. The consequences
of our action turn out to be bad for our
reputation and horrific for the natives.
We jumped into Iraq with all the guns blazing
made us proud for a while and then shamed
us with Abu Gharaib prison scandal, lies about
WMDs and enhancing Iranian influence. We
do things badly and complain about others
benefiting from our action-Russia in Libya
and Iran in Iraq. My hunch is if Trump starts
war in Korea, China will ultimately have a sway
over the whole peninsula. Past will repeat itself.
1
s. Khan: Some of us were never proud of all the lies and reports that were used to gain support for the Iraq debacle. Many of us were paying attention.
1
I keep reading of the importance of oil rich nations near the p[ersian gulf. I am aqware that once they were oif immense importance and their oil was valuable. AT the current time, it seems that soon the oil underground will become more of a burden then a an asset. Oil can be replaced, and not too far in the future. The real problem then will be the increasing floods of people, no longer supported by petro dollars, who will want to move anywhere but back home. Were I a responsible politician or military person, I would want to begin planning for the eventuality of much of the population of he middle east wanting to move to Europe, America or Australia where they once exported their valuable oil to.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was a sleeping giant. But he's very much awake now and is wasting no time to assert his powers. While we've been sleeping, Mr. Putin "The Fox" has been quietly and inconspicuously carrying on with his agenda to create global instability. And while we snooze, Mr. Putin has been mustering troops beyond Russian borders to fight his battles - Libya and Syria being classic examples. Mr. Putin has been nosing around unstable countries at odds with democracy. And he's been winning favor by providing immense firepower to those just for the asking. Russia's involvement in the Syrian crisis, right from day one, should have sounded warning bells. In it's fledgling stage for any kind of resolve, the Syrian conflict mushroomed while Mr. Putin vetoed every peaceful solution proposed by the UN Security Council. The Russian president is determined to be a formidable foe as he plays his cards in a game of restoring the might of his country that once existed before the Iron Curtain fell. It's to his advantage to arm countries sharing his mindset. They will be part of the Putin team using the fear of terrorism that knows no boundaries. It makes perfect sense. While these Russian-armed countries fight it out, there's no paper trail leading to Mr. Putin's involvement. He can say quite comfortably: "I know nothing." Yet, he knows everything in his bid to obtain "supreme commander" status. Are we missing the boat on the Russian threat? Sadly, yes.
1
Sorry, I will not give it to Putin. We are the best in exporting "instability". We are number ONE in messing up entire regions and then blaming it on somebody else. Putin is our favorite.
4
Putin may be your favourite now, but walk quietly and carry a big stick. Putin wants war.
1
Perhaps Russia will restore the stability in places Pre-ISIS that existed before NATO and the US took it away by sowing chaos.
13
Let me see. In 2011 the US wanted to shape Libya to its liking. To do that the US used the UN program designed to protect civilians as a cover for American regime change. Of course, it stroke the blow to the UN credibility and dramatically decreased likelihood that Russians will ever work with Americans in the UN, but who cares, right? Too bad, that it didn't work like planned, and instead of stable Libya totally in fold of the US, America got bloody mess, with many warring parties. Well, America had its chance, it is only fair that Russians will try their luck, after all countries have equal right, right? America should not be afraid of the competition. After all, competition is good. At least that we were told.
15
A far cry from the triumphalism of 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/africa/nato-war-in-libya-shows-u...
"Libya proved that the leaders of some medium-size powers can be overthrown from a distance, without putting American boots on the ground, by using weapons fired from sea and air with the heaviest load carried by partner nations — in the case of Libya, European allies and even some Arab states."
Now its a debacle and its all Trump's fault. I suppose these things are easier to see from the outside than in, but the one-sided reporting around here is just relentless and unfortunate.
10
Another regime change operation by the U.S. that turned into a disaster.
7
But, we’ll have yuge, beautiful parades, you just wait.
2
Bush took out Saddam, Obama took out Qaddafi, all in some misguided attempt to install Western style democracies in their countries. How well did work out?
Maybe the Russians have a better handle on reality in the region.
13
The author is blaming Trump for not cleaning up Hillary’s mess in Libya. What a fine pass, we’re depending on a narcissistic billionaire and a narcissistic millionaire to set our foreign policy.
4
Maybe now that Spacex is opening the door to distant worlds, perhaps the Muslim World could get a little farther away so we wouldn’t have to be in others hair all the time. It would be nice if we all could be happy with enough of a buffer zone to make it possible. I’d be curious to see if even ideologies can have their boundary limits. Finally, a good reason for infinity.
How can he possibly concern himself with something like this when he has a parade to plan? Color coordinate the tanks with the missiles...then there's the post parade Kool-Aid and pony rides on the east lawn. Has he designed his uniform yet. Extra room in the back of the boots.
1
If the fools in America had not toppled Qaddafi America would not be in this mess right now.
9
Eric and Jo did a disservice in this long and rambling article/op-ed piece by not pointing to the fact that prior to the killing, toppling, and interfering by the West Qaddafi’s Libya was whole and there were no pockets of ISIS/Al-Qaeda types. It is the illegal acts of NATO (against its charter) that resulted in this humanitarian crises, hundreds of thousands have already died in this episode of Pentagon’s regime change policy. It is not President Trump or his predecessors, Obama, or Bush but it is the Department of war that is no longer under civilian control as the constitution willed it. It is running wild throughout the world and is totally out of control.
Whether Russia would help or hurt by being a player in Libya is yet to be determined. The statements that every country has a right to determine and follow policies that are good for them is certainly valid. The UNSC fails to interject that it is so only if it doesn’t interfere in other countries and keep killing humans as a consequence. If countries are not at war they must not just invade as they do not like the rulers/leaders of a particular country- such as what is being currently being worked on Western Capitals for DPRK and Iran.
Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Palestine are some other examples of what we do to humans. None of them are success stories, are they?
14
What this article does not discuss is the absence of European policy. Europe has far more at stake in Libya than the US and has acted irresponsibly towards meeting its NATO defense obligations. Europe certainly has the capability of defending itself. Shouldn’t we recognize that the Middle East is fundamentally a European responsibility? The US should provide help in the same way Europe provides help in Asia and in the Americas. But, Europe needs to provide leadership.
1
Shouldn't we recognize that the Middle East is the Middle East's responsibility? Neo-colonialists are criminals.
2
May be the Russian effort will ease the conflict and bring peace to the area? Why not someone other than the US bring peace to the world?
3
"Indeed, the administration has deferred the difficult job of brokering a diplomatic settlement almost entirely to the United Nations."
Isn't that their job??
6
Following the logic that was applied to George Bush and Iraq - "You break it you own it" Then this is Obama's failure.
Since Obama's response to Bush in Iraq was to deny ownership and abandon the country. Of course that was Obama's response to Libya which he broke.
So at least he was consistent and so we should not be surprised that the results of the Obama foreign policy are consistent. A consistent failure.
3
Obama followed Bush mandate and Iraqs by pulling out.
US influence waned under Obama, who pulled unilaterally out of Iraq, reduced US troops in Afghanistan announcing a pull out date and caved in when faced with enforcing his self imposed red line in Syria
You can view the withdrawal under Obama as rational , as since the invention of fracking , that propelled the US to the number one oil producer in the world, there is no national interest in petro states abroad.
Or you can view it as failure of his foreign policy, leaving a vacuum, that created ISIS and allowed the Russians, and increasingly the Chinese, fill the vacuum
Your choice.
Trump is establishing a more muscular policy. As someone who has lived in the region, his policy is as coherent as you can operate in this entangled environment.
Again, your choice how you see it.
2
Because, the US invaded Iraq unilaterally, it is only fair it withdrew unilaterally. How else it could withdraw? I am not sure about more muscular policy of Trump. It seems to me more directed to irritate people rather than solve problems, but maybe, irritation is now called muscular.
2
I supported President Obama on just about everything except Libya.
Our "long-term strategy" failed there. Overcoming Qaddafi resulted in chaos, which persists, along with a new home for the Islamic State.
I support very little of what Trump does, but complaining about his lack of "cohesive policy" is akin the Republicans complaining that Obama was taking too long to clean up the economic disaster they delivered to him when he took office.
There is also the implication here that Trump does not have a policy because it would mean going against Putin, who Trump is supposed to be in cahoots with.
Excuse me--I don't want us going to war with Russia over Libya. And I didn't collude with anybody.
7
The destruction of the Libyan government by the United States was a mistake in international law and in strategy, let alone allowing for the undoing of Libya as a state, the harming of Libyan citizens and harming of untold southern workers in Libya.
7
Key phrase, " foreign entanglements ". Key question, how many should we undertake? It was clearly a mistake to dump Gaddafi and impose regime change on Libya. The result has been violent chaos. Let Russia pick up the pieces.
15
The Libyan debacle is a direct result of our meddling & colluding with France during the Hillary Clinton State Department era, assassinating Gaddafi, destroying the infrastructure & creating a chaotic situation/power vacuum that has been filled by the very forces we were supposedly fighting to keep out. Clinton's emails to Sid Blumenthal prove that our real reason was to prevent Libya from instituting a gold Dinar with which to trade, buy & sell African oil within the African continent & thereby supplanting the decades-long hegemonic power of the US Petro-dollar arrangement we have had with Saudi Arabia, that forces all other countries to use the buck exclusively for resource purchases & sales. Clinton's emails to & from the French government (revealed by Wikileaks) shows our true intent. A theory advanced in William R. Clark’s book "Petrodollar Warfare" asserts that Washington-led interventions in the Middle East & beyond are fueled by the direct effect on the U.S. dollar that can result if oil-exporting countries opt to sell oil in alternative currencies. in 2000, Iraq announced it would no longer use U.S. dollars to sell oil on the global market. It was invaded by the US in 2001. Libya was invaded & occupied in 2011. Venezuela opted out from the dollar in 2013 & has faced devastating US sanctions & IMF financial attacks ever since. With our failure in Libya & secret support for ISIS, Russia steps in & now we're threatened there? Oh right - our "allies' interests" AKA Oil.
21
Has anyone read the article in its entirety? The summarizing paragraph observes that Trump is implementing the same policy as Obama, lead from behind. Why all the new complaints and are the complaints not an attack on Obama since Trump is obediently following Obama policy according to the article? Also, did anybody digest the fact that nearly all of the negative actions took place before Trump was in office. Lastly, it is laughable that a photo of an Obama empowered general aboard what is essentially a floating piece of Russian junk has everybody in a tizzy. It is a piece of propaganda but it is increasingly difficult to determine who is reporting it and who is enabling and creating it.
8
What more can we do? We murdered Gaddafi, destroyed a functioning government, destabilized the region, invented and armed a violent, unstable opposition, set in motion the European migrant crisis and deceived the American people. I believe we’ve done more than our share. Let the Russians and others pick up where we left off.
48
Remember how Obama lauded and encouraged the Arab Spring? And then Libyans killed the guy keeping the cork in the bottle. And then Obama and Hillary did nothing there for 5 years except get Ambassador Stevens and some good US service people killed...and try to blame it all on you and I over "...inflammatory material posted on the Internet...?" Is that the same Libya?
Let Russia have a crack at it.
11
I find this problematic for multiple reasons, but my top two are:
1. I don't trust Russia as a substitute for the U.S.'s role abroad.
2. I believe that sustained and strategic U.S. involvement would discourage human traffickers and other bad actors from using Libya as a transit rout for their victims.
On the other hand, I don't believe this administration knows how to strategically intervene in any conflicted region.
24
You and your European friends, using what has been proven a CIA created rebellion, overthrew one of the most socially advanced regimes in Africa and created chaos there. Maybe Russia can bring some stability to Libya. Blame Obama and Hillary, not Trump who probably did not even know that Libya existed.
8
I am quite "unstudied" in Libyan policy, but our NOT having our long and well-earned concerned-neighbor policy, and disengaging from normal diplomacy brings up first and foremost the nagging thought: "is this a favor of Trump to Putin?, along with the super-nagging thoughts "how many favors are stilll due to Putin in thanks for his getting Trump the big win?" And the super-super thought: are yielding our leadership roles more and more to Russia a mere favor, or part of the quid pro quo promised by the collusion?
We can't stop human trafficking across the Rio Grande and you think that we can stop it across the Mediterranean? Seriously?
Yet again we see how Trump's gutting of State has made a mockery and sham of our foreign policy, some places obviously more concerning (i.e., North Korea) than others. The list goes on and meanwhile Russia and China blanket the Middle East, Africa and South America to rush in because our current administration for god knows what bizarre reason/s has suddenly decided that guns should be our foreign policy. Admittedly Tillerson is way out of his league but more importantly he has been given the message that diplomacy and a concerted strategic plan vis-à-vis foreign policy will not happen with this administration. Tragic and unacceptable to watch the expertise and dedication of career patriots ignored and devalued by POTUS and his saber-rattling advisors while we watch our international stature destabilized and rendered ineffectual because of incompetence, ignorance and avarice defining the Oval Office.
24
Horseshoe, The heralded state department that trump is "gutting" is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place. Remember? Logic would dictate that years of failure and disaster would warrant a few unemployed screw ups. If not, support a second Trump administration!
6
Our foreign policy is simple: we invade, bomb and kill as we wish.
1
Credibility is an asset, like military might or technological advantage, that backs national interests. The almighty dollar is backed not by gold but by these, sometimes intangible, assets. Russia may not be interested in an African entanglement, but sure yearns for the Soviet's might. Putin's investment in destroying democracies in the west is starting to pay off, with a weak US and their stooge as president.
13
Using the words Trump and coherent in the same sentence are laughable. That would presume that we have someone in the White House who is a leader or at least tries to act like a leader.
Trump is not a leader. He has never been a leader, and he will never be a leader. I can’t wait for this administrator to come to an end.
11
This is what you get when you gut the State Department of experienced personnel, allow the Pentagon to have direct influence in the White House and formulate foreign and domestic policy based on FOX News "talking heads" like Sean Hannity. MAGA indeed.
7
More behavior that benefits Vladimir, uhm, part of a plan?
5
The US under Obama and Clinton destroyed a relatively stable and prosperous Libya - creating a disaster just as it did in Iraq and Syria. How anyone can pretend that the incredible obscene actions of the US to destroy these functioning nations did not cause the catastrophe now faced first by the people of these counties and not hold the US responsible is the height of hypocrisy. Of course Trump can’t fix what has been done and by comparison Russia may be a stabilizing force. Oh, but evil Russia welcomed the US created opportunity to welcome Crimea when the “regime change” it championed in Ukraine also went badly. Until the NYT and other western media and nations can at a minimum accept responsibility for the great disasters they are complicit in they should cease the kind of intellectually vapid analysis exemplified by this article - first deal with the truth. You can’t have an effective policy to deal with a situation that you don’t even acknowledge is of your own making.
36
better check your facts. it was Bush Cheney that created this mess.
6
Exactly! And some people wonder why North Korea develops a nuclear arms program. But as long as people in the U.S. see world politics as "We good, they bad" there is no solution in sight.
3
In Iraq yes, they did. In Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Libya, and Syria they did not. Those strategic moves, all great successes for someone, were the doing of the Hillary Clinton State Department under President Obama.
I'd love to hear who benefited from any of the latter successes. I know that Biden's son got a high position in a Ukrainian company in an industry where he had no experience.
Anybody else know any actual benefits?
6
Does Putin's arm get tired from holding up Trump-marionette strings all the time?
6
So so while trump flops around like a fish out of water, Putin gains influence. Anyone surprised? Putin gets anything he wants from his bought and paid for agent in the White House.
10
This article leaves little doubt that Trump or someone close to him is very much Putin's man within the decision making circle. At this point, it is not that important when the opportunity for the Russians was created and by which Administration, the main point in my opinion is the influence that Russia now has with the White House. This will not be the last example as long as this philosophy is allowed to continue.
Everything Trump does harms the United States and helps Russia. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
7
Which is better, Libya under Ghaddafy or Libya in anarchy and a heaven for terrorist organizations? Thank you Obama and Clinton for following the same stupid path of W. Bush, also in Syria!
29
And now Trump is following the same path: "To many Libyans, though, the Trump administration’s strategy looks a lot like the Obama administration’s post-Benghazi “lead from behind” approach: carrying out reactive strikes while leaving the difficult tasks of reconciliation to the latest United Nations envoy." Other solutions?
Just a few years ago we were informed that the destabilization of Libya was a victory, especially because someone claimed that there were no boots on the ground. We were told to assume that all the weapons and resources in Libya would fall into the hands of the good guy even though no one would identify the good guy. Opposition to the move was viewed strictly as obstructionist and a racist rejection of Obama policy with a tinge of misogyny tossed in for good measure since the plan was hailed as part of the wonderful Clinton legacy.
Suddenly reporting on the issue has done an about face and the entire fiasco is not a problem. Exactly who are our friends and allies in Libya. It seems there really are none and any effort to interfere would result in fighting not only every tribal faction, but also ISIS and the Russians. So, just out of curiosity, what are the real reasons that people are pushing Trump (thereby our soldiers and money) to jump into the fray? Perhaps it might be better to realistically portray the entire incident as a massive screw up and realize that we cannot undo anything. Or perhaps the media and powers that be really just want some oil dollars and some excuse to transfer the blame from those who created it to trump who for the time being rightfully wants to remain uninvolved. Luckily, trump is taking the right course on this one, why all the needling to attempt him to further the fiasco?
12
Granted there's no excuse for the U.S. not having an ambassador there but America's "problem" (even under a President who has no particular concern with democracy or human rights) is that its citizens have grown tired of foreign wars and entanglements and are willing to concede much of the developing world to the tender ministrations of Russia and China. Neither of those nations cares very much about the nature of the government they're propping up, whether financially or militarily- as best exemplified by Moscow's embrace of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Their own citizens don't have either the will or the capacity to complain, and so the U.S. is reduced to looking away as the world's other big powers divide up the powerless for their own advantage. Who was it that won the Cold War again?
7
President #45 undermines the U.N. and at the same time “has deferred the difficult job of brokering a diplomatic settlement [in Lybia] almost entirely to the United Nations.” The outcome is to cede Lybia to Putin. Perhaps this was one of the takeaways in undocumented discussions between Putin and Trump.
14
PV! I would like to see some real evidence regarding your claim. Technically, the previous administration used a willing UN as international justification to initiate the debacle. I see no harm in letting the UN handle things, especially since we all seem to see Trump as unable to adequately do the job.
3
I have no problems letting Russia get bogged down in the Middle East quagmire. Afghanistan almost brought them to their knees. It is high time for us to stop trying to solve all of the world's problems militarily.
41
" It is high time for us to stop trying to solve all of the world's problems militarily."
Because of lack of intelligent diplomacy which is much more difficult than using force.
This isn't just about military intervention. It's an example of U.S. total retreat from any world leadership in diplomacy, economics, technology or morality. Trump is becoming Mussolini to Putin's Hitler. That didn't work out well back in the 30's for anyone.
6
I would go further and say it it high time for us to stop trying to solve the world's problems, full stop.
2
What makes you think this wasn’t the intended outcome? Trump has parades to plan- let Russia and China have Africa.
14
Ms. Murray, I am not sure if Russian takeover of Libya was the intended outcome of the Libyan fiasco but if it is as you say, one must look not at Trump but to those who initiated the entire thing to begin with. Here is a hint, those who preceded trump started the whole thing.
8
What I've read, even in 1991 the Bush/Cheney administration was actively, covertly involved in destabalizing the Libyan regime (evidently ongoing since the downing in 1988 of the Pan Am flight).
It did not start with the previous president. AND "only 20 out of the last 200 yrs" has the U.S. and Libya had "positive relations" (according to book: Libya and the United States, Two Centuries of Strife By Ronald Bruce St John)
2
What?? Africa is not up for dibs. It is a continent of sovereign countries.
2