More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

GET UPDATES FROM Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Obama Administration Policy of Regime Change Has Become an Obstacle to Peace in Libya

Posted: 04/12/11 09:28 AM ET

With the support of the U.S. and the U.S.-backed NATO the "rebels" have rejected an African Union peace plan which included a ceasefire, an end to U.S./NATO air strikes, humanitarian aid, and political reforms.

It's easy for the rebels to reject a peace proposal: The U.S. is spending more money on this war than any other nation. The cost of the war has reportedly passed $600 million and there is no end in sight.

The mysterious "rebels," who by themselves have been unable to force Gaddafi to terms, want the U.S./NATO to hand over control of Libya to them -- this even though they have not been able to demonstrate broad-based public support throughout the country. It is understandable the rebels would demand regime change. That's the Obama administration position.

In the past week the administration has rejected a communication from Gaddafi which sought to end the war and to bring about a peaceful agreement. The administration yesterday asserted that it had not read the African Union's plan to bring about a peaceful agreement; nevertheless, Secretary Clinton continued to call for regime change. If regime change is the price of peace there will be no peace in Libya, and consequently, millions of innocent civilians will be caught up in the middle of an intensifying civil war.

Humanitarian intervention has quickly given way to covert operations, regime change, and unending civil war. The U.S./NATO have taken sides in a manner that puts politics ahead of protecting civilians and undermines the argument that the United States and NATO attacked Libya to avert a humanitarian disaster. It is beginning to appear that the potential for a massacre was not a justification for action, it was pretext.

We're now prolonging a civil war. We are putting civilians at risk: Regime change, providing extraordinary air combat assistance, rejecting peace plans, assisting in rebels gaining control over oil resources, continuing covert operations, consideration of arming the rebels, all adds up to more innocent people getting killed.

If we in fact diverted one humanitarian crisis, we are about to start another. Inevitably, Libyans must resolve their own internal affairs without outside intervention. When the people of the United States truly understand the cost of these interventions, this administration may have more to be concerned about than regime change in Libya.

 

Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich

With the support of the U.S. and the U.S.-backed NATO the "rebels" have rejected an African Union peace plan which included a ceasefire, an end to U.S./NATO air strikes, humanitarian aid, and politica...
With the support of the U.S. and the U.S.-backed NATO the "rebels" have rejected an African Union peace plan which included a ceasefire, an end to U.S./NATO air strikes, humanitarian aid, and politica...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Victor John
11:10 AM on 04/16/2011
no one is listening to you Dennis, not even in Ohio. you should worry about your reelection cos your chances are 20%. only the far left really pay attention to you.
01:06 AM on 04/13/2011
Keep 'em honest, DK!
11:09 PM on 04/12/2011
Your loose and frivolous exploit on the term 'rebels' undermines any argument that you have. Please remember that Libya's uprising started as peaceful demonstrations on Feb 17. What you see now is the result of the brutal actions of the Gaddafi regime. It is not a civil war, the Libyan freedom fighters were forced to carry arms in self defense. For example, despite constant bombardment by Gaddafi forces for the last 6 weeks, the city of Misurata has turned out by the thousands to demonstrate PEACEFULLY for the ouster of Gaddafi and sons. Spokesperson for the city, "We started this revolution peacefully, and we'll end it peacefully despite the bombardment."

Your argument that this is a civil war is completely false and invalid. It is documented by journalist, human rights groups, and the UN that Gaddafi is using mercenaries in his militia from Chad, Mali, Sudan, Belarus, Algeria, and various sub Saharan countries. IT IS NOT A CIVIL WAR IF OTHER NATIONS ARE BRINGING IN THEIR PEOPLE TO MURDER FOR YOU. This then in turns debunks any notion of a peace plan with the African Union. Pretty much all the African nations are funded by Gaddafi. Therefore, they will do all that they can to make sure that he remains in power.
01:05 AM on 04/13/2011
IT IS A CIVIL WAR

Civil war exists when two or more opposing parties within a country resort to arms to settle a conflict or when a substantial portion of the population takes up arms against the legitimate government of a country.

The augmentation of the forces of the legitimate government by non-citizens does not disqualify an internal conflict from being appropriately called what it is, a civil war.
02:40 AM on 04/13/2011
No matter what YOU say and try to twist meanings the rest of the WORLD sees this as a CIVIL WAR... There is no getting around semantics, for example, you would mislead if, lets say, you called it a "tea party". Anyway, I agree with Rep. Kucinich.
03:17 PM on 04/12/2011
Dennis, your attention getting rants will only make you look bad. At my favorite congressman, Weiner is loud, but he makes sense most of the time. My Weiner is never divisive or annoying because he stays on sensible message. Maybe, you should learn from him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
02:55 PM on 04/12/2011
I like many of Kucinich's ideas - but this isn't one of them. The Libyan rebels know that it is do or die at this point. If Kadaffie remains in power he will be utterly ruthless in eliminating anyone who opposed him - or didn't support him strongly enough. The idea that they could come to some compromise at this point is ludicrous. Maybe we shouldn't have gone in and helped - I don't know. But it would be criminal to back away from supporting the rebels now that we have chosen that path.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:51 PM on 04/12/2011
I wish Dennis could be President.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FloridaLAW
This Day, This Moment, Right Now!
02:37 PM on 04/12/2011
I have a feeling that anyone who disagrees with this article will have their posts deleted. There is no way that 100% of commenters agree with Kucinish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FloridaLAW
This Day, This Moment, Right Now!
02:27 PM on 04/12/2011
Who is this Kucinich? Whose side is he on? Why does he call himself a Democrat but then you've never seen him have anything good to say about our Dem. pres.ident? He runs for president every 4 years and garners less than 1 percent of the Dem. vote so what qualifies him to give aid and comfort to the opposition?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anym
Obama is GoldmanSachs
09:51 AM on 04/15/2011
First learn to google, Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic Representative from Ohio, and the most liberal and honest man in the Congress.

Secondly you realise that the major supporters of the Libyan war are Neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, Newt Gingirch, Charles Krauthammer, Pete Wehner, and various other far right wackos, who think that every sand box in the middle east should have a US military base on it.

So the giving aid and comfort to the opposition line is kinda bizarre in this situation.

Finally when did Democrats adopt the policy of endless war in 3rd world countries?

Didn't we learn that this was a mistake from Vietnam?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MalleusMaleficarum
Global nomad.
02:23 PM on 04/12/2011
Indeed - Dennis Kucinich is dead right. The United States has just injected itself into a blazing civil war. Time to let the African Union and the Arab League to adjudicate this fiasco - and bring the troops home from Libya - now!
02:56 AM on 04/13/2011
It was criminal for doing nothing for 40+ years!!! Why now? We help clear out the "Evil Oppressors" and what then? Remember Afghanistan? We are now fighting our old "Allies" there... Hmmm
02:21 PM on 04/12/2011
Your well cosidered voice of reason is why I supported your nomination for President and why I continue to support your leadership even though I live in Texas. Thanks for your post on this. We support who you are. We are also contacting the President and Congress to share this point of view.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Visionary Excellence
01:52 PM on 04/12/2011
does the US military care about the people of Libya? is it a hippie mission? why choose Libya over swaziland where the average life expectancy is 31 years?
02:26 PM on 04/12/2011
Short answer. No. So what next. Are you up with a new military strategy for Progressives?

See Meteor-Blades FP story today:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/12/965600/-Military-strategy-for-progressives:-Now-is-the-time-to-press-for-Pentagon-cuts,-green-reinvestment
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FloridaLAW
This Day, This Moment, Right Now!
02:30 PM on 04/12/2011
Because Libya is in the Middle East and we have a vital interest in the stability of that region. It's not really that hard to understand.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Visionary Excellence
03:21 PM on 04/12/2011
Thats a an oversimplification. The global energy industry and financial elite have a vital interest in oil production. Commodity bottle neck based energy technology is a great business plan - energy is an input in every product - if you can controlandmanipulate energy prices using market dynamics you can print your own money. In a neoliberal world order $ sets policy and the energy industry is 7T$ per year - theyre the ones puling the levers of gov. tax payers are footing the bill.
12:10 AM on 04/13/2011
Libya is in north AFRICA
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:12 PM on 04/12/2011
Dennis, no one is listening. Americans have retreated into fantasy, because reality is so stacked against them. People voted for change in 2008. Instead, they got more of the same. More war in places opnce won and then lost, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and more cuts in services for the rest of us.

Why should the elite do anything different as long as Americans choose to remain ignorant and compliant? The facts are widely available, even from fact-based rightist websites like the Council of Foreign Relations, which has asked all the tough questions about Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places around the globe where we are stumbling around without a clue.

Sorry to be so negative. But reality is. And the wealthy are treating everyone else with contempt. If we take it, then we deserve the treatment that we're getting.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
TheOuroborus
It's NOT paranoia if they really R out to get U.
01:08 PM on 04/12/2011
American military policy is wildly arrogant and, at the same time, irrelevant in the long run.
photo
Frenbar
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
01:22 PM on 04/12/2011
In the long run the earth will crash into the sun.
12:27 PM on 04/12/2011
Who said this (mal)administration wanted peace in Libya to begin with? If anything, it is another reason, Congressman Kucinich, to challenge the MIC and corporatocracy pitch man in the White House to save not only the Democratic Party, but also and more importantly, the country.

NObama O' Biden in 2012! Dennis Kucinich for President!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HKR07
02:11 PM on 04/12/2011
Dennis, we need to have someone like you primary Obama, just to let him know that he CANNOT take progressives for granted because "they have nowhere else to go." Remember last fall?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FloridaLAW
This Day, This Moment, Right Now!
02:35 PM on 04/12/2011
Do you know how many times Kucinich has ran for pres? Did he ever win a single primary? he's nothing more than a trouble maker that stirs the pot in order to make himself relevant. If Kucinich was president what would he have done? Would he have sat by and allowed Ghaddafi to slau-ghter thousands of civilians? I don't see that BO had a choice.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
12:17 PM on 04/12/2011
Most of what the U.S. has done in the region for the past 50 years seems to be a study in 'unforeseen consequences'. I submit that Libya is not one of those cases. The problem with Libya is that the consequences are all too apparent. We do nothing and there are grave consequences. We do all we can and there are grave consequences. We stand to the side giving minor assistance and there are grave consequences. We promote peace, we promote revolt, we turn left, right, up, or down and there are grave consequences at every turn. So pick a path and pick your poison - not for us to take but poison for the Libyan people.
03:34 AM on 04/13/2011
We must have expected to scare the crap out of Gadafi and have him killed or run away, so that didn't happen, now we are faced with more difficult questions. Despite all the hoopla about mercenaries vs Libyans, and Gadafi having no support from Libyans. It was widely reported that Gadafi opened his arsenals and armed civilian supporters, so now what? Are we in the business of regime change? Rep. Kucinich is pointing out basic facts without the emotional hyperbolie we hear constantly.