HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025620.tif
54.5 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
6
Events
6
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Article/opinion piece
File Size:
54.5 KB
Summary
This document is an article from The Guardian by Michael Boyle, dated April 2, 2011, analyzing President Obama's rationale for the military campaign in Libya. Boyle critiques the strategy as muddled, highlighting the shift from defensive operations to active involvement in a civil war with US, British, and French forces, and the coordination of CIA officers with Libyan rebels. The article also mentions the consideration of sending weapons to the rebels, reflecting a high level of ignorance about the conflict.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Michael Boyle | Author |
Author of the article 'Obama doctrine? If only'
|
| President Obama | US President |
Articulated rationale for military campaign in Libya
|
| Gaddafi | Leader of Libya |
Opponent in the Libyan civil war
|
Timeline (6 events)
2011-04-02
President Obama's speech articulating rationale for military campaign in Libya.
Obama administration began working with rebels to coordinate air strikes against Gaddafi's forces in Libya.
Libya
Obama administration
Libyan rebels
Gaddafi's forces
CIA officers present in Libya to coordinate air strikes with rebels.
Libya
CIA officers
Libyan rebels
Relationships (6)
President Obama leads the Obama administration.
Obama administration
→
Cooperating with
→
Libyan rebels
The Obama administration quickly began working with the rebels to coordinate air strikes.
This turned the US, Britain and France into combatants in a civil war.
CIA officers
→
Coordinating with
→
Libyan rebels
There are now CIA officers present in Libya to coordinate air strikes with rebels.
the US and its allies are considering sending weapons to the Libyan rebels.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,693 characters)
11
Article 3.
Guardian
Obama doctrine? If only
Michael Boyle
2 April 2011 - In his speech on Monday night, President Obama
articulated his rationale for the ongoing military campaign in Libya,
claiming that a failure to act would have permitted humanitarian
catastrophe that would have "would have reverberated across the
region and stained the conscience of the world". His argument was
essentially one of moral emergency, implying that anyone chastened
by the failure of the US and European governments to act in Rwanda
and similar cases should recognise the necessity of acting in Libya.
But as recent events have demonstrated, a compelling moral case
does not equate to a coherent strategy. Indeed, it is charitable to call
this strategy muddled. Initially committed to only to defensive
operations to stop the advance of the Libyan military into cities like
Benghazi, the Obama administration quickly began working with the
rebels to coordinate air strikes to push back Gaddafi's forces. This
turned the US, Britain and France into combatants in a civil war; no
matter how much they claim only to be engaged in "kinetic military
action" or some other Orwellian euphemism, the facts are plain.
There are now CIA officers present in Libya to coordinate air strikes
with rebels, and the US has flown over 1,600 sorties. While the
American public may be fooled by the dissembling language,
Gaddafi and his regime will have no illusions about who is bombing
them.
Now, if only to underscore this point that this is a real war, the US
and its allies are considering sending weapons to the Libyan rebels.
Even contemplating this reflects an astonishing level of ignorance:
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025620
Article 3.
Guardian
Obama doctrine? If only
Michael Boyle
2 April 2011 - In his speech on Monday night, President Obama
articulated his rationale for the ongoing military campaign in Libya,
claiming that a failure to act would have permitted humanitarian
catastrophe that would have "would have reverberated across the
region and stained the conscience of the world". His argument was
essentially one of moral emergency, implying that anyone chastened
by the failure of the US and European governments to act in Rwanda
and similar cases should recognise the necessity of acting in Libya.
But as recent events have demonstrated, a compelling moral case
does not equate to a coherent strategy. Indeed, it is charitable to call
this strategy muddled. Initially committed to only to defensive
operations to stop the advance of the Libyan military into cities like
Benghazi, the Obama administration quickly began working with the
rebels to coordinate air strikes to push back Gaddafi's forces. This
turned the US, Britain and France into combatants in a civil war; no
matter how much they claim only to be engaged in "kinetic military
action" or some other Orwellian euphemism, the facts are plain.
There are now CIA officers present in Libya to coordinate air strikes
with rebels, and the US has flown over 1,600 sorties. While the
American public may be fooled by the dissembling language,
Gaddafi and his regime will have no illusions about who is bombing
them.
Now, if only to underscore this point that this is a real war, the US
and its allies are considering sending weapons to the Libyan rebels.
Even contemplating this reflects an astonishing level of ignorance:
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025620
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document