Obama's Speech on Libya Tonight
Mar. 28th, 2011 08:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatHere's the link to Obama's speech on Libya tonight along with the transcript:
http://www.shallownation.com/2011/03/26/president-obama-libya-speech-video-march-28-2011-address-at-national-defense-university/
You can watch the full speech on CNN or just read the transcript on that site.
And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.
And:
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
And:
Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Got to give him credit for being a great speaker and have a really good speech writer.
To be honest? I'm taking a wait and see attitude, as I do with all things political nowadays. I like the fact that he's not planning on trying to rebuild Libya and has actually learned something from Iraq and Afghanistan. And protecting the Libyan people from Gaddafi's air strikes is not a bad idea, I'm behind that. Doesn't appear that we are attacking anyone, so much as helping the opposition defend themselves.
That said, it did occur to me and I give Obama credit for being honest about this - that we can't exactly do this for everyone. (ie. If the nasty fascist government in question has bigger guns and more firepower then we do, we are going to stay out of the conflict, particularly if we owe them a trillion dollars. *cough*China*cough* Libya's not that big a deal - we don't owe them any money and they don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction that could take us out. North Korea, China, and Iran are another story. They are also on the list of countries that still employ the "death penalty" for acts that are not that severe along with, ironically, several states in the US (*cough*TEXAS*cough*)- which the paper had a huge article on this morning. But don't worry, I don't permit myself to discuss the death penalty in my live journal any longer - it's a topic that tends to bring out the self-righteous, patronizing/condescending bitch in me (ie. I have a tendency to convey to people who think it's a good idea to have the death penalty that they are vengeance seeking nitwits, which is hardly polite or productive. As I'm sure you'd agree, whether you like the death penalty or not. Gotten myself in more trouble over that topic offline and online.)
Overall - Obama didn't really say anything that I didn't already know. The paper has had numerous articles on the whole Libyan thing. I'd already heard this weekend that NATO had finally come to an agreement - they've been fighting over what to do and which country should do what and when for weeks now. This speech basically told us what they'd finally agreed to. Yay, team! We are a contentious bunch, us humans, it continues to amaze me that we accomplish much at all. Certainly cause for celebration when we do.
Oh? The paper finally started using the name Gaddafi and opposed to Quaddafi, or maybe it always had and I was just reading or remembering it wrong? You'd think Quaddafi would be nice and have an easy to remember name like I don't know, Obama. Certainly be easier on journalists documenting this whole thing.
http://www.shallownation.com/2011/03/26/president-obama-libya-speech-video-march-28-2011-address-at-national-defense-university/
You can watch the full speech on CNN or just read the transcript on that site.
And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.
And:
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
And:
Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Got to give him credit for being a great speaker and have a really good speech writer.
To be honest? I'm taking a wait and see attitude, as I do with all things political nowadays. I like the fact that he's not planning on trying to rebuild Libya and has actually learned something from Iraq and Afghanistan. And protecting the Libyan people from Gaddafi's air strikes is not a bad idea, I'm behind that. Doesn't appear that we are attacking anyone, so much as helping the opposition defend themselves.
That said, it did occur to me and I give Obama credit for being honest about this - that we can't exactly do this for everyone. (ie. If the nasty fascist government in question has bigger guns and more firepower then we do, we are going to stay out of the conflict, particularly if we owe them a trillion dollars. *cough*China*cough* Libya's not that big a deal - we don't owe them any money and they don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction that could take us out. North Korea, China, and Iran are another story. They are also on the list of countries that still employ the "death penalty" for acts that are not that severe along with, ironically, several states in the US (*cough*TEXAS*cough*)- which the paper had a huge article on this morning. But don't worry, I don't permit myself to discuss the death penalty in my live journal any longer - it's a topic that tends to bring out the self-righteous, patronizing/condescending bitch in me (ie. I have a tendency to convey to people who think it's a good idea to have the death penalty that they are vengeance seeking nitwits, which is hardly polite or productive. As I'm sure you'd agree, whether you like the death penalty or not. Gotten myself in more trouble over that topic offline and online.)
Overall - Obama didn't really say anything that I didn't already know. The paper has had numerous articles on the whole Libyan thing. I'd already heard this weekend that NATO had finally come to an agreement - they've been fighting over what to do and which country should do what and when for weeks now. This speech basically told us what they'd finally agreed to. Yay, team! We are a contentious bunch, us humans, it continues to amaze me that we accomplish much at all. Certainly cause for celebration when we do.
Oh? The paper finally started using the name Gaddafi and opposed to Quaddafi, or maybe it always had and I was just reading or remembering it wrong? You'd think Quaddafi would be nice and have an easy to remember name like I don't know, Obama. Certainly be easier on journalists documenting this whole thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 02:09 am (UTC)Hr hr. :D
Ok, i won't discuss anything you don't want to have discussed on your LJ - let's just say i like you. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 10:31 pm (UTC)Ok, i won't discuss anything you don't want to have discussed on your LJ - let's just say i like you. :)
Thank you. ;-)
No, really not a good idea to discuss in depth. I tend to get shall we say rather didactic on the topic. The reason for this is two-fold - I know too much about how it is handled in the US court system and well, I feel rather strongly about it.
Ironically? The only people I think should get the death penalty, don't - ie. serial killers. The reason? They use it as a bargaining chip to get the killers to reveal where all their victims bodies are buried and who their victims were.
Nasty topic.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-30 01:13 pm (UTC)As to the topic:
The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all public authority.
This pretty much sums up my stand on the death penalty. So yeah, someone fucked up immensely, and killed a fellow human being. That doesn't strip him/her of his/her dignity.
(I have more thoughts, but this is your LJ. :) )
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 02:45 am (UTC)I know this is a mostly a semantic argument, but I think it's important to use precise language when talking about these things so people will have the right information.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 07:56 pm (UTC)Serial killer - severe enough, a la Charles Manson.
I don't believe anyone should get it unless they are a "serial" killer. Murder by itself is not severe enough.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-29 10:22 pm (UTC)And since our system is highly unreliable, the death penalty is
not a good idea.
The article was in the Metro, Monday Edition, New York.