You don’t just walk up to the local bully and slap him across the face. If you are determined to confront him, then you try to knock the living daylights out of him. Otherwise, you are better off leaving him alone.
Anyone who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem could have told you that. But Barack Obama didn’t grow up in my old neighborhood. He had a much more genteel upbringing, including a fancy private school, in Hawaii.
Advertisement
Maybe that is why he thinks he can launch military operations against Moammar Qaddafi, while promising not to kill him and promising that no American ground troops will be used.
It is the old liberal illusion that you can measure out force with a teaspoon, not only in military operations micromanaged by civilians in Washington, like the Vietnam War, but also in domestic confrontations when the police are trying to control a rioting mob, and are being restrained by politicians, while the mob is restrained by nobody.
We went that route in the 1960s, and the results were not inspiring, either domestically or internationally.
The old saying, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him,” is especially apt when it comes to attacking a widely recognized sponsor of international terrorism like Colonel Qaddafi. To attack him without destroying his regime is to ask for increased terrorism against Americans and America’s allies. So is replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism.
President Obama’s speech on Monday night was long on rhetoric and short on logic. He said, “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.”
Just what would lead him to conclude that this includes the largely unknown forces who are trying to seize power in Libya?
Too often in the past, going all the way back to the days of Woodrow Wilson, we have operated on the assumption that a bad government becomes better after the magic of “change.” President Wilson said that we were fighting the First World War to make the world “safe for democracy.” But what actually followed was the replacement of autocratic monarchies by totalitarian dictatorships that made previous despots pale in comparison.
The most charitable explanation for President Obama’s incoherent policy in Libya — if incoherence can be called a policy — is that he suffers from the longstanding blind spot of the Left when it comes to the use of force.
A less charitable and more likely explanation is that Obama is treating the war in Libya as he treats all sorts of other things, as actions designed above all to serve his own political interests and ideological visions. Whether it does even that depends on what the situation is like in Libya when the 2012 elections roll around.
As for the national interest of the United States of America, Barack Obama has never shown any great concern about that.
President Obama started alienating our staunchest allies, Britain and Israel, from his earliest days in office, while cozying up to adversaries such as Russia and China, not to mention the Palestinians, who cheered when they saw the televised collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Many people on various parts of the political spectrum are expressing a sense of disappointment with Obama. But I have not felt the least bit disappointed.
Once in office, President Obama has done exactly what his whole history would lead you to expect him to do — such as cutting the military budget and vastly expanding the welfare state.
He has bypassed the Constitution by appointing power-wielding “czars” who don’t have to be confirmed by the Senate as cabinet members must be, and now he has bypassed Congress by taking military actions based on authorization by the United Nations and the Arab League.
Those who expected his election to mark a new “post-racial” era may be the most disappointed. He has appointed people with a track record of promoting race resentment and bias, like Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Disappointing? No. Disgusting? Yes. The only disappointment is with voters who voted their hopes and ignored his realities.
Well said, as usual, Dr. Sowell. I've never understood the supposed disappointment surrounding the Obama Administration. We are seeing a left-wing radical govern just like a left-wing radical. To quote former NFL Coach Dennis Green "they are who we thought they were".
Another rambling opinion piece from Thomas Sowell. I thought this would be an in-depth discussion of Obama's Libyan actions but instead, distills Obama's entire agenda into a widely disparate diatribe about anything and everything. I remember now why I bypass his column in my local newspaper when it appears.
As always, Dr. Sowell nails it!
Just a thought:
The "rebels" win. Then they start killing all those loyal, or even perceived to be loyal to the old regime. Do we start strafing the rebels?
One of a hundred ways this can go of the rails.
Not only did Obama not grow up in a neighborhood where dealing with a bully was a needed life skill, he can't play chess either.
Mr Sowell is a national treasure,a scholar and a gentleman;his analysis
of current events as in this article full of understated brilliance unlike our teleprompter wielding fraud/menace in the WH
Mr Mooney too bad ;your shallow partisan and witless comments dont measure up
Kudos!!! I have the same views. I like Sowell's simplicity and straight up approach. I especially like the part about pointing out that Obama grew up in a genteel environment. First off, I don't think he is street smart despite his "community organizing" background and having lived in Chicago. He is not a good fighter. He is weak. He reminds me of a kid who goes around being sneaky and poking people and then whines and acts all annoying when accused of it. Eventually, however, those kinds of kids get their come uppance. Second, I don't think he is a great speaker. His mannerisms and tone are those of a rehearsed person on the b.s. His speeches go in circles and I am always left feeling irritated rather than inspired. Third, I don't think he is all that smart. The problem is that the people who think he is smart are not smart so they think he is smart when, indeed, he is not. Unfortunately, I think this world has become so dumbed down that people just don't realize how mediocre he really is. Or maybe we also have a very self-absorbed society that doesn't really appreciate the things that matter in life. I think of that every time I am at Whole Foods and observe ill-mannered people sipping beer and wine while shopping for their "organic food" which they think is somehow good for their health and helping to save an obscure tribe in what's left of the Amazon rain forests. Total illogic reigns. But back to Obama, I don't even know if I would categorize him as mediocre. He might be well below that. In conclusion, I don't like Obama or self-absorbed people who shop at Whole Foods, but I do like Sowell's article.
Yes, describing Obama’s policy as “incoherent” is to be charitable. I would have chosen “dishonest” and “unprincipled.”
If one wishes to sum up the “Obama Doctrine,” it is “Obama will do or say whatever he calculates will make him look the best, and will do or say whatever he calculates will make his political and ideological opponents look the worst.” Only a political leader with a complicit mainstream media can actually implement such an “Obama Doctrine.”
To the extent moral principle is involved, it is that Obama does not want to be perceived as not having moral principle.
Allowing millions of deaths in the Congo or the Sudan doesn’t make him look immoral for not doing anything about that, because the attention of the mainstream media is not focused there. On the other hand, allowing thousands of deaths in Benghazi would make him look morally insensitive for doing nothing, because attention IS focused there.
Also, the Libya War happens to provide Obama an opportunity to further two ideological goals: first, swinging another ax blow at the trunk of the Constitution by starting a war without congressional approval; and second, making the US military into a tool of transnational progressives rather than of the American people.
The problem with America is not Obama, it is politics. If special interests didn't rule the day in our illustrious and wholly corrupted Congress, America could (and should) mind and tend to it's own business - wasting, mangling, and ruing the lives of thousands of your Americans and their families while squandering a trillion dollars rebuilding cultures of futility in democracies that are crack smoke pipe dreams is hardly Obama's fault, rather those who could but don't end it. If Obama wanted Quadaffi dead, he'd already be toast (as ell as bin Laden) but then he'd have to suffer the cacophony of hypocrites - Americans who have to have everything their way - a million agendas and no two congruent or cooperative. If America was smart we'd get out that entire area, conquer our demons, and kill our enemies quietly the old fashioned way - with DroneEx precision. Does no one remember the last lines in Three Days of the Condor as so eloquently summed up by Cliff Robertson in answering why we do it?
I opine that to get the home loans from creditors you ought to have a great motivation. But, once I've got a short term loan, because I wanted to buy a house.
If someone is the cause of atrocities, slaughter, and massacre then you eliminate the source. If, in the name of humanitarianism, it's OK to kill the army privates then it's morally acceptable to target the Colonels (i.e. Colonel Qaddafi). This isn't complicated.
"So much truth packed into so few words. Bravo, Dr. Sowell."
My thoughts also.
@John Mooney
"I remember now why I bypass his column in my local newspaper when it appears."
If you avoid even looking at his column in the paper then why would go to the trouble going all the way over to a conservative website and click on a link to one of his columns and then proceed to read it?
I enjoyed the article, Dr. Sowell. Yesterday I was thinking about how Obama cannot understand America because he spent too much time in non-standard or non-American environments. His mother was a devoted communist and she took Barry with her to Indonesia, where he went to the local schools. He came back here and eventually went to Harvard, which is not the usual path of the average American. He doesn't really know what America is or what it is about, and thinks the words on his teleprompter represent reality. But he reads them as if bored by the need to speak to the Philistines who are too stupid to understand how much better the nation and the world will be when the intended transformation is complete, but whose votes he needs to remain in position to ram it down their ungrateful throats.
Unfortunately this article is grossly misunderstanding Obama, as are everyone commenting. You are talking as if Obama is supposed to behave with the same interest in America that Ronald Reagan had. Yet it is Mr. Sowell and all of these commenters that fail to accept Obama is not interested in America's success, but in ensuring its failure.
He will arm the "rebels" next, which is why he now has put off handing over control to NATO. Last year he armed Egypt with the biggest arms sales ever. He has also banned further arms sales to Israel at the same time. He has said that Palestine will be a new nation in September, and has created this new policy with the UN where he can use it against Israel to make that happen on 9/11 or six months from now.
Stop thinking of Obama as an American with the interest of America at heart. Obama is a George Soros plant, put into place by his 1,200 organizations that duped the voters once, but not again. However 2013 is a long way off and there will be much more damage to America well before then. You have seen nothing so far, the speed and reach of his and Soros scheme will bring our nation to its knees before 2013.
another wonderful column from the brilliant Thomas Sowell.
as Dr. S. points out, Obama isn't disappointing those of us who always suspected he was trouble. I believe the "Obama Doctrine" goes something like this: "reaching out to the barbarians, while taking our allies for granted."
Sowell calls out Eric Holder for special contempt. there's no chance he'll resign, of course, but at the very least someone should tell him that "his" people are now the AMERICAN people, not the black people.
but really: Holder, the odious Samantha Power, the incompetent Janet Napolitano, the flat-out fool DNI James Clapper...is there ANYONE in this administration who knows what he's doing?
Obama is a creature of the faculty lounge in demeanor, except for the edgy community organizer piece.
The thing that Reality Check brings up is the next shoe to drop: a U.N. sanctioned recognition of a Palestinian State, followed up by a reprise of what is going on in Libya, targeted at Israel.
All h**l is about to break loose and there is little that can be done to stop it so long as we engage in politics as usual.
Dr. Sowell brings much needed clarity to this topic. Indeed his prescription should be reflected as American Foreign Policy.
As a Canadian, I have a simple question for my American friends "if it was necessary to elect an African American as president as propriation for historical mistakes, why didn't you elect Dr. Sowell??
Well done once again Dr. Sowell. Thank you. What's immoral is what Barack Obama is doing to this country. I love my country and it is being desecrated. This relentless onslaught of all that is Obama is astonishing. How do you fight so much that is done outside the law of the land. The Congress, the law, the Constitution -- all ignored. How can you fight within a system that has been so bastardized and neutered. Truly astonishing. Knowing it is happening has not provided any meaningful avenue to stop it. I have always believed in the American people -- those who take a lot but only so much, and finally when that mysterious line is crossed we fight to defend this nation. I hope those American people are still here.
Here's what the Fraser Institute a respectied Canadian voice has to say about Obama's idea to hand the Libyan project off to Nato while America steps back.
"NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen now says the alliance is in charge of "all aspects" of the operation. But even though the public wrangling is now behind the alliance, Libya reminds us of what the Balkans debacle taught us: When the U.S. doesn't lead from the outset, the Western alliance doesn't work."
I've done my best to take the statements of President Obama and find a coherant policy. The best I have come up with is this:
If the President wishes to act unilaterally, he must go to Congress.
If he acts multilaterally, Congressional approval is not necessary.
Lastly, at no time will the President act unilaterally.
This is not an actual foreign policy, but simply a created set of provisions to justify Obama's decision.
There is of course no coherent policy that could be understood by the leaders in Syria or Iran to mean anything other than "keep it up". Even Gaddafi cannot be clear on President Obama's intentions.
Lack of clarity is a sure way to create a need for more military action in the future. Here is what I wish he would have said. External Link
