I’ll have more in tomorrow’s Morning Jolt, but I feel tonight a lot like the night of Obama’s speech announcing the Afghanistan surge to West Point. On paper, I agree with a lot of what Obama is saying. But he’s stringing together a lot of pretty-sounding phrases without really getting at the questions most skeptical Americans have: why intervene here and not in other places? Obama’s caught himself between his comments that clearly suggested regime change (Qaddafi must step down) and a strict adherence to a U.N. mandate that doesn’t include regime change. What is our goal? What do we do when America’s national interest and a United Nations rule conflict? And why are we worrying about what the U.N. says, anyway? Obama seems to be indicating we say publicly that we’re not pursuing regime change militarily but pursue it through non-military means, which seems like a fine (and perhaps odd) line. (If you’re trying to knock a brutal terror-sponsoring dictator out of power, knock him out of power! Don’t do it halfway!) Finally, what have we signed ourselves on to? Can we trust the Libyan rebels? What are we trying to replace Qaddafi with?
In the end, Obama’s speech amounted to, “Look, I realize none of you understand my decision making, but at the end of the day, you can rest easy knowing I’m right.”
He thinks he’s reassuring us.
Your last two paragraphs nail it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"On paper, I agree with a lot of what Obama is saying. But he’s stringing together a lot of pretty-sounding phrases without really getting at the questions most skeptical Americans have: why intervene here and not in other places?"
Oh for pete's sake, that statement is the absolute definition of hypocrisy. As if the same was said by Geraghty when *Shrub* "intervened" into Iraq?! Epic, epic fail. To try to pull this type of hypocrisy over readings shows astounding intellectual laziness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, Dan S., you can point to what I wrote in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq.
Oh, what's that? You can't? You have no idea what I wrote during the run-up to the Iraq War? You just presume to know what I think? Ah. Well, some might think "To try to pull this type of hypocrisy over readings shows astounding intellectual laziness."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree - "just trust me" is the underlying message here, and behind that is this rationale: I will accomplish my ends by whatever indirect and coercive means are available and necessary - and you will like it, because I am so much wiser and smarter than you are and know best how you should think, act, and indeed, live.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, of course he isn't levelling with us. It would be criminal irresponsibility if he did. Things have to be said in public that everyone knows are not true; that's diplomacy for you. Or politics in general.
Why Libya and not Country X: BECAUSE IT'S EASY!
I get SO tired of this argument, which amounts to saying we can't do anything anywhere at any time if we don't do everything everywhere all the time.
Gadhaffi is a target of opportunity. He's down, so we're putting the boot into him. For revenge, and because it's against our interests for him to continue in power now. The guy has done crazy stuff before (Lockerbie) and will again.
Specific points:
"Obama’s caught himself between his comments that clearly suggested regime change (Qaddafi must step down) and a strict adherence to a U.N. mandate that doesn’t include regime change."
-- oh, for the love of God, the "U.N. Mandate" means whatever the hell we find it convenient for it to mean! We -drafted- the resolution.
What's this weird fixation on paragraphs and semicolons? What do words matter? Obama is a lawyer and a politician; as far as veracity is concerned, that's like a shark with a grenade launcher on its head.
We made the U.N. resolution ambiguous to give the Russians and Chinese some wiggle room, and now we're interpreting it to mean we can rotate AC130's and Warthogs over Gadhaffi's men, blowing them into dogmeat.
Repeat after me: It... means... whatever... we... say... it... means.
Those who disagree can argue. And while they talk, we act.
>What is our goal?
-- depose Gadhaffi. Everything else is secondary.
But we can't SAY that, or at least not too often or too definitely.
So what? It's what we -do- that matters. The rest is spin.
>What do we do when America’s national interest and a United Nations rule conflict?
-- whatever we feel like doing, of course. And then we LIE ABOUT IT.
And babies are not left under cabbage leaves!
>And why are we worrying about what the U.N. says, anyway?
-- are we? Not so that I noticed. We're using the U.N. as an instrument, the way we usually do.
>Can we trust the Libyan rebels?
-- we can trust them to be weird, evil, creepy and ungrateful. They're Libyans. So what?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan S, why do I doubt you are as eager to shout "Epic Fail" at all the people on the left who were aghast at what President Bush did but suddenly find President Obama's action perfectly reasonable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse