Western leaders, and the United States especially, have developed a strange habit of ordering particular dictators to step down while declaring their resort to savage violence “unacceptable.” What does “unacceptable” mean — to whom and how exactly so? One did not hear Churchill ordering Hitler to step down in 1940, or Truman demanding that Kim Il Sung leave in 1950, apparently because they either could not realize such threats or were first striving to create the conditions under which such monsters would be nullified by deeds rather than words. Usually those with inferior military power are the loudest; those with overwhelming force calibrate their rarer rhetoric in accordance with the planned use of force.
The problems with all this are multifold, well beyond the violation of the old precept about staying quiet while carrying a big stick. E.g., are we prepared to use force to back up our ultimatums? Is there any connection between a presidential threat and reality — that is, did Mubarak step down because we, a sizable donor and key ally, asked him to, or because the size of the resistance simply reached a tipping point? Were the two connected?
Timing is crucial: Does President Obama ask a Mubarak or Qaddafi to step down because they are innately savage and he wishes to preempt inevitable popular unrest and violence, or does he do so only in reaction to preexisting growing unrest and out of a desire to piggy-back on apparently successful indigenous efforts? That can be tricky: Two weeks ago we were lectured that Qaddafi would be gone within hours, tomorrow, within days, within a week; today we are warned of an upcoming Somalia-like civil war. And tomorrow, we will be told . . . what? If we sound bellicose and behind the curve, as in the case of Egypt and perhaps Libya, the U.S. seems opportunistic, predicating its principles on the apparent ebb and flow of crowds in the street.
And exactly what conditions earn a presidential put-down? A million people in the streets of Tehran demonstrating against fascist theocracy? The subversion of Lebanese democracy, serial assassination abroad, and overt support for terrorist killers, as in the case of the Syrian dictatorship? Why was Iran different from Tunisia and Egypt? Do we have any consistent template that governs the level of expressed American anguish — the degree of violence used against the people, the degree of anti-American hostility, the degree of support for international terrorism and unrest, the likelihood that a regime will fall soon?
At some point, we had better become consistent in the application of our threats and calibrate our rhetoric with our willingness and ability to use force. Otherwise, the more frequent the proclamations, the more empty they will sound, and the more irrelevant the U.S. will appear.
The Genovese Syndrome writ large?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I read the headline on Google News, "Unacceptable" hit me the same way. Way beyond understatement.
Sounded like a school teacher reprimanding an honor roll student for failing to turn in their homework.
When outrages are committed it is okay to show a little outrage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"When outrages are committed it is okay to show a little outrage."
At least in regard to the Boston PD, Obama must have felt that that outrage warranted the much harsher response that "the police acted stupidly."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo decipher the duplicitous nexus of our historic first Islamic apostate president’s words and deeds, the sequence events unraveling before our eyes points to the following means to a promised end—fundamentally transforming the American way of life:
Deplete our domestic oil resources—not by production, but by the regulatory interdiction thereof;
Stoke the Mohammedan resurgence in the Middle East in which the side we take in conflicts between the people and leaders is the one most likely to be in conflict with American interests (yes, the ends justify these necessary means);
Ride the price of oil up on the world markets (yes, we consume more Canadian oil than
Saudi, but Canadian prices are set in the sands of Arabia and in the waterways of the Gulf);
Ration gasoline consumption.
Collectivize American life by using the precedent of gasoline rationing to extend rationing (electricity, credit, cigars, etc.) as fast as our submission allows.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are paying, and will continue to pay, the price for not impeaching Bill Clinton. The incredible damage done to the U.S.-on almost every front-for allowing Clinton to continue in office will be reverberating for years to come.
Incredible short-sidedness by Trent Lott and the rest of the Senate. It certainly gives thinking men and women pause as to what is really going on in the country-and who controls it.
Unbelievable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is going to send Khadafy a strongly worded letter soon.
As for unacceptable, the prior 40 years of his rule were acceptable ?
Its all about the oil unfortunately.
What does Obama have to say about Sudan ? Ethiopia ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand that Obama has gone golfing today so perhaps I am needlessly worried about our over-extended military…which, according to today’s Wall Street Journal, is urged to get involved in the Libyan civil war. Worse still is the headline “GOP Prods Obama on Libya”. What part of “If you touch it, you own it” doesn’t the GOP understand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNorth Africa is a mess. The difference between North Africa and various carnage going on in Central Africa is that Libya has oil (2%) and North African refugees are swarming into southern Europe and onto their welfare roles. Isn’t this Europe’s problem? Aren’t we shouldering too much of the world policeman role already?
As for the oil, if the Obama administration would start issuing permits for Anwar and for US owned properties here in the US, there would be plenty of oil for all.
Finally, we are being urged by Al Jazeera to get involved to show our good faith. What else do you need to know to stay out of this affair?
Chronology -so far- of the Turmoil in the Middle East since January, 2011, starting off with Tunisia.
(a) In Egypt, at the beginning of February, the 'Muslim Brotherhood' tries to hijack the "revolution," calling for war with Israel and its "spiritual" leader Qaradawi who advocates for 'Caliphate' and genocide of Jews - given a podium.
(b) Some US journalists are severely beaten, accused of being "Israeli spies." Some terrorism also reported there.
(c) At the celebration of the fall of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, a racist Arab Muslim mob of 200 attacked and sexually assaulted CBS' 60 Minutes reporter Lara Logan, while yelling "Jew!, Jew!"
(d) Protests spread to other oppressive dictatorship in the Arab-Muslim Middle East such as: Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, etc. Local governments responding with violence. Libya's dictator M. Gaddafi --accused of genocide-- even sends fighter jets to bomb its civilan protesters. [UN envoy accused him of genocide] High casualties [in the thousands] reported. [Highlights of the Arab racist, Islamic fascist: M. Qaddafi.] Iranian Islamic Republic [typically] cracks down with harsh brutality. It tries to exploit the turmoil to spread its radical influence. It's proxy the Islamic terror group Hezbollah, calls on its "holy warriors" to be ready to invade Israel.
(e) Islamists fascists cut throat of Catholic priest in Tunisia.
(f) More anti-Israel bigotry among Arab masses: [Despite anti-Israel history of tyrant Qaddafi,] anti-Qaddafi protesters in Libya mark him with a 'Star of David.'
(g) Rise in Arab racism against Africans and anti anyone 'dark' in Libya
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: Obama’s use of “Unacceptable”
I am reminded of a scene from The Princess Bride.
Vizzini just cut the rope that The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing yet Roberts doesn’t fall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVizzini: He didn’t fall? Inconceivable!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
I am opposed to intervening in Libya. Where do we draw the line on these military adventures? Yes, people are suffering. But we have to recognize that we are a poor nation now, up to our eyebrows in debt.
I swear that if we discover life on another planet, there will be those who will want to send troops 'to end the suffering'.
Enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is an impotence about the western world now that must make Chinese leaders laugh. We shout loudly, carry big sticks, but are reluctant to use them. We are all the while exposed for our hypocrisy- deals with despots one decade, furious words against them the next. Some consistency, within a properly moral framework, would provide us with self respect; and the world might notice, and approve. Of course, Barack Obama was elected by an American electorate who, in part, hoped this might come about.
All empires fail, & the American empire is falling: 9/11 was not the cause of the fall; it accelerated it. Where there should have been total global condemnation of the act, & of measures to deal with the movement that spawned the perpetrators, there was instead an increase in hatred for the United States, & not just among Islamic extremists. Hardly fair. The US is democratic, freedom-loving, economically & militarily powerful, and, generous & philantrophic. That is not how its enemies see it. They see an arrogant, inconsistent, contradictory, hypocritical country, which leans on friends and enemies alike. Also unfair. The US believes in helping to extend democracy to all, but its actions don't always support the policy. Deals with dictators for oil are just one example. So, as the people of the Middle East rise, in one nation after another, they look not to the United States for support of any kind: Iraq and Afghanistan are too fresh an example of what the true cost of American(& other foreign involvement) can be. They want to determine their own futures. And so the Chinese sit on the sidelines, refusing to judge or intervene, growing their economy, extending their economic influence around the world, appearing to be under control, polite, not pushing any ideaology or creed; and all the while denying their own people democratic room to breathe. Ironic that the country which represents freedom in the world is mistrusted and even hated; and the one which represents repression gets by, with scarcely a word of criticism. One empire, tired and weakening, is condemned, whatever it does. The other, rising again, sits in silence, preparing for its new ascendancy. We can prevent China becoming the sole superpower this century, the only empire, and one devoted to control not freedom, but it will require a degree of intelligent and consistent behaviour by the United States (and its allies).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse