President Obama is proud of how he put together the Libyan operation. A model of international cooperation. All the necessary paperwork. Arab League backing. A Security Council resolution. (Everything but a resolution from the Congress of the United States, a minor inconvenience for a citizen of the world.) It’s war as designed by an Ivy League professor.
True, it took three weeks to put this together, during which time Moammar Qaddafi went from besieged, delusional (remember those youthful protesters on “hallucinogenic pills”) thug losing support by the hour — to resurgent tyrant who marshaled his forces, marched them to the gates of Benghazi, and had the U.S. director of national intelligence predicting that “the regime will prevail.”
Advertisement
But what is military initiative and opportunity compared with paper?
Well, let’s see how that paper multilateralism is doing. The Arab League is already reversing itself, criticizing the use of force it just authorized. Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, is shocked — shocked! — to find that people are being killed by allied airstrikes. This reaction was dubbed mystifying by one commentator, apparently born yesterday and thus unaware that the Arab League has forever been a collection of cynical, warring, unreliable dictatorships of ever-shifting loyalties. A British soccer mob has more unity and moral purpose. Yet Obama deemed it a great diplomatic success that the League deigned to permit others to fight and die to save fellow Arabs for whom 19 of 21 Arab states have yet to lift a finger.
And what about that brilliant U.N. resolution?
● Russia’s Vladimir Putin is already calling the Libya operation a medieval crusade.
● China is calling for a cease-fire to be put in place — which would completely undermine the allied effort by leaving Qaddafi in power, his people at his mercy, and the country partitioned and condemned to ongoing civil war.
● Brazil joined China in that call for a cease-fire. This just hours after Obama ended his fawning two-day Brazil visit. Another triumph of presidential personal diplomacy.
And how about NATO? Let’s see. As of this writing, Britain wanted the operation to be led by NATO. France adamantly disagreed, citing Arab sensibilities. Germany wanted no part of anything, going so far as to pull four of its ships from NATO command in the Mediterranean. France and Germany walked out of a NATO meeting on Monday, while Norway had planes in Crete ready to go but refused to let them fly until it had some idea who the hell is running the operation. And Turkey, whose prime minister four months ago proudly accepted the Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, has been particularly resistant to the Libya operation from the beginning.
And as for the United States, who knows what American policy is. Administration officials insist we are not trying to bring down Qaddafi, even as the president insists that he must go. Although on Tuesday Obama did add “unless he changes his approach.” Approach, mind you.
In any case, for Obama, military objectives take a back seat to diplomatic appearances. The president is obsessed with pretending that we are not running the operation — a dismaying expression of Obama’s view that his country is so tainted by its various sins that it lacks the moral legitimacy to . . . what? Save Third World people from massacre?
Obama seems equally obsessed with handing off the lead role. Hand off to whom? NATO? Quarreling amid Turkish resistance (see above), NATO still can’t agree on taking over command of the airstrike campaign, which is what has kept the Libyan rebels alive.
This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead — no one has anything near our capabilities, experience, and resources — America is led by a man determined that it should not.
A man who dithers over parchment. Who starts a war from which he wants out right away. Good God. If you go to take Vienna, take Vienna. If you’re not prepared to do so, better then to stay home and do nothing.
This is just another example of the liberal mindset. It really doesn't matter what they do, as long as their hearts are in the right place. The policy can be completely wrongheaded, but the intention to do good is all that matters. He can be a complete screw-up, but libs will be happy because he meant well.
I agree with the assessment of the matter by Mr Krauthammer if Obama is actually acting as a rationally straight POTUS; even one critically flawed. But I am ever more inclined to find myself believing Obama is acting with a purpose entirely sinister-at least to me-but liberating to him: reducing America to a second rate power, extremely socializing the country; wounding us thoroughly enough to eliminate our world standing, and/or having America being taken over by a foreign entity. To say the least, it means the end of this grand experiment.
The trouble with making the fact that you are "one among many" your mission tends to undermine any objective you might achieve. If you have made and accomplished your mission of being "one among many," you have accomplished nothing, because that fact would be true under any circumstance.
Worse, when you are the strongest and are being relied on, you lead to nowhere when you make it your mission not to lead.
I don't have a doctorate, but I don't get the professor part. Sure there is some parchment, but I only get a whiff of intellectualism and an occasional suggestion of academic preening. Perhaps our President is only pretending to be an intellectual who is pretending not to be too intellectual. That would fit with the dishonest poseur thing from which I get far more than a vague whiff.
So who is NATO? Isn't the USA by far the largest contributor to NATO both financially and militarily? In essence we are keeping the costs and exposure for ourselves while giving operating control to the Europeans and Arabs and the Turks. Remember how the Turks had our backs in 2003? Moments before the invasion of Iraq they disallowed access to their ports and airspace, thus denying our strategically important entrance to Iraq from the north. Who could question the reliability of the Arabs? And wasn't it France who would not allow airspace rights when Reagan tried to finish Quaddafy in the '80's? Great partners our esteemed President has chosen, wouldn't you agree?
Please tell me, why are we constantly behaving stupidly?
Dr. K: I think this is worse than you are portraying it. It appears to me that Obama never got his ducks in a row on this, by which I mean, he never worked out with our allies, behind the scenes, what the mission is, who would do that, and who's on board and who's not. So, now, what we have unfolding in front of our eyes is a chaotic scene of nations not knowing what to do. It is almost out of Abbot and Costello's, Who's on first?
All those Arab League's, China's and Russia's leaders and all the Middle East dictators did not get there by being stupid or naive. You can't rise to the top there and survive for long without being a ruthless schemer and a smart cynic.
Our politicians are like innocent babies comparing to those spiders. Chicago machine though, might be a close approximation. Obama's problem however is that he was not a dealer there, but a front, a smooth mouth. And his Leftists instincts (America is just another country) are all wrong for this fight.
Not to say that W was some kind of a Machiavelli, but he understood our role, respected the power he wielded and drove US as a tank. Our enemies might have enjoyed making jokes about him as a simpleton, but they were forced to respect the power. Especially that Bush was stubbornly indifferent to what others think about him (for better or worse).
Now, as Rodney Dangerfield would say, we get no respect.
As a puppet of Soros, of course Obama believes in an "Open Society," where national sovereignty has no merit.
Thus, Obama can fully embrace the tenet that Charles Krauthammer finds so baffling:
"Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely 'one of the partners among many,'he said Monday."
The US, like other Western nations, are merely pawns in the struggle for power, orchestrated at the moment by Cass Susstein, Samantha Powers, and George Soros with the "blessing" of the "international community."
Every day in every way , it gets harder and harder to attribute to malice what can be also explained by stipidity . In Obama's case the malice is derived from an ego the height of which is only exceeded by its lack of any foundation in achievement
It boils down to this - Obama does not see America as exceptional - he would her to be on the level of every other nation. And that is what informs his decisions.
Liberals do not have good intentions. They have sinister intentions to rob people of agency over their own lives in order to amass more power to themselves at the expense of their fellow humans whom they do not trust and for whom they have no respect (based on the fact they think there should be less humans on the planet as we are the bane of the Earth's existence).
And we see this play out in Libya. They would actually fathom to HELP the people of Libya by designing a military mission INTENDED to KEEP Quaddafi in power! The very source of the humanitarian crisis that commanded our intervention -- allowed to remain in place, to continue, or worse, escalate the crisis! Where is the good INTENTION in that, because the INTENTION is too keep Quaddafi in place.
And let's not mention that our efforts - however successful - are lent to a cause (the Libyan rebels) about whose members we know absolutely nothing. And the liberals in this admin. DON'T INTEND to find out! So this bleeding heart "do-goody-good" bullturd could actually lead to a significantly WORSE humanitarian crisis.
See? Sinister intentions.
Now, we see further that they are not entitled to ANY BENEFIT OF DOUBT as to whether, in the alternative, they merely are too imbecile to comprehend how their policies ALWAYS promulgate the problems they purport to solve.
They've been controlling almost every city in this country for decades, and our urban centers are veritable disaster areas.
They've been running a welfare "safety net" for over 1/2 a century, and they've managed merely to rip apart inner city families and thoroughly destroy the one institution - the school - in those neighborhoods that was at all successful.
If I wanted to amass power at the expense of others, I would design policies to cause the supposed beneficiaries to become increasingly reliant on my actions for their subsistence, and at the same time I'd make sure that the problems never get solved, prompting more of MY "well-intended" policies.
Sinister intentions. They don't get to hoist a banner of compassion and benevolence over their promulgation of a proven evil like socialism.
As of today the President has three choices: abandon the war altogether, take the lead, or choose a middle course. Because this war is a mistake on every level, as of today the middle course is the best choice.
There is another huge problem with this--at the military execution level, if there is no overarching national strategy, or even just some goals, the Captains and Majors end up deciding what happens all the way down at the tactical level, since they are never told what they are trying to accomplish, other than to "do something". So you get competent, well-meaning action officers all the way down at the Wing and Squadron level driving national policy. That isn't how it's supposed to work.
Dr. K is states it well, as always. This administration is a dangerous mix of arrogant attitude and naive behavior. Watching them handle the nation's affairs is like watching the second coming of Children's Crusade.
@ Coach Springer:
I'm with you. I went to college. I take a backseat to no man in my contempt for ivory tower intellectuals. Until recently, I was thoroughly convinced that Woodrow Wilson, our only president with a PhD, was not only the worst in history, but approximated a theoretical nadir.
But characterizing Obama as an intellectual is an unwarranted insult to even that class of credentialed ninnies. Obama is not a real intellectual; but he plays one on TV. That is why he utters bonecrushing stupidities whenever he wanders too far from the TelePrompTer. I'd trade this clown for Woodrow Wilson in a heart beat, and throw in a Secretary of State to be named later.
The only thing exceptional about America is it's founding principles embodied in the Constitution.
If you believe just like Obama and his circle in a "living document" doctrine and obsolescence of principles limiting government powers, it is quite logical to believe that "America should be merely “one of the partners among many”".
The rest of you: President Obama is not Lex Luthor. He is not sitting behind his Oval Office desk, rubbing his hands and cackling with fiendish glee as his Ultimate Plan for the Downfall of Amerikkka unfolds. And you are not the Justice League of America.
@MikeB--agreed, that Obama isn't Lex Luthor (although I've always been a big Gene Hackman fan). However, if he was, at least there would be a plan. This man is totally rudderless once the water's edge is reached. I totally disagree w/ his domestic policies, but at least he has some. In the world arena, he is wandering aimlessly while supposedly in charge of the last superpower.
Hi Mike, it's me again. I'll bet you've missed me.
Anyway, as usual, you've assumed your rightful role as the "teacher" to all of us unruly brats, so thanks for the chastisement.
As for Madisonian, I'll await, what is to be sure, his own devestating response. In the meantime, could you show me and the rest of your students where his grammatical and diction errors are, so's we kin avoid em?
Follow
