I have been as critical as anyone of the administration’s finger-in-the-wind, “Mubarak is a dictator, Mubarak is not a dictator” policy during the last two months. In the case of Libya, Obama has seemed almost Shakespearean in his public musings about whether to be or not to be. In general, from the very beginning of the unrest in Tunisia, the United States has appeared erratic, inconsistent, and contradictory, often pontificating and talking loudly while carrying a tiny stick. It also apparently has no clue that Iran, Libya, and Syria are different sorts of autocracies from a dictatorial Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, or the Gulf states.
That said, however, we should not take too seriously the sudden European chest-thumping about jumping in to support Libya. The British government has a tawdry record of cynicism in its money-making diplomacy with Qaddafi the last few years. The Italians cozied up to him for gas and oil, and the French and Germans will sell anything to anyone at any time. No European government will back up any of their ongoing humanitarian rhetoric with force; they will launch no Euro air sorties from Spain, southern France, Malta, Italy, or Crete to stop Qaddafi’s use of airspace to put down the rebels.
After all, the present U.S. policy of non-interference is exactly the sort of soft-power contemplation that the Europeans for the last decade have clamored for in an American administration. Secretary Clinton’s and President Obama’s emphases on the primacy of the U.N., multilateral consensus, U.S. deference to the Arab League, the EU, NATO, etc., is European to the core.
All this is not to deny that Sarkozy et al. are shrewd. They hope to get out in front of the U.S. (and have) in terms of humanitarian concern for the Libyan rebels, without any concern for themselves: If we do nothing, they, not us, appear the custodians of Western values; if we do act, even better for them — France and Britain finally shamed the U.S. into action. Or, to put it another way, we take the risks, incur the costs and ill-will, and yet appear to be reacting to a more moral Europe’s far earlier and stronger hectoring.
Somehow this administration is slouching toward the worst of both worlds: moral ambiguity and an open-ended, messy sorta-involvement.
This is the result of pretending that a nation's foreign policy (including the use of force) is used for anything other than that nation's self interest.
If you clearly state that you will only make decisions and take action based ONLY on the nation's self interest, while there may be wailing and gnashing of teeth, you can't be called hypocritical when you take action in one place but decline to do so in another.
Humanitarianism is dandy but unless you can be the grand humanitarian in each and every case, you will found to be at fault. You will be resented (i.e. why them but not us?) You will find yourself entangled in no-win and wealth draining endeavours that will never be of any value other than providing a temporary feel good emotion based on the sense of being "good and benevolent"
People are being slaughtered in Bosnia and Iraq, we act to save them! In Darfur and Lybia, not so much. People are enslaved in North Korea, Venezuela, China, Cuba but that we rend our clothing and beat our chests in anguish over Egypt.
We set ourselves up for the game the EU is playing and we tend to walk into it every time.
Rewrite the rules of the game.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease, there is literally no course of action Obama could take that would prevent criticism from Corner writers.
If he stays out of it and lets Libyans fight it out he's weak kneed and morally ambiguous.
If he intervenes for the protesters he's supporting the Brotherhood and the coming caliphate.
If he intervenes for former ally Ghaddafi then he's supporting a awful dictator who brutalizes his people.
I have no sympathy for the administration. Dealing with these situations is part of governing. But it would be nice to hear someone be honest and admit that no matter what Obama does the talking points are written and ready to be deployed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama: Iraq is the bad, illegitimate war. Afghanistan is the good war. Mubarak bad and has to go. Ghaddafi -um, well, yeah, bad but but..
Cairo speech - no country should meddle in another country's affairs
Iran 2009 - not going to meddle, no sirree.
So many talking points, so many basketball games to play, so many decisions not to make
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSlouching towards irrelevance would be more like it ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou tell him, Polonius.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>The British government has a tawdry record of cynicism in its money-making diplomacy with Qaddafi the last few years.<<
But that's just one of the reasons we have a new British government now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur reaction has bee appropriate, if confused. Libya is not a major concern of America's except for the oil they produce.
We must move away from this bizarre notion that the world is our police beat, and start attending to our own major ills.
The US was a minor player on the world stage before WWI, and somehow, we survived. As we are beset with terrible problems, we need to focus within rather than without.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe hard, unpleasant truth is that Obumbles looks on Qaddafi as something of a kindred spirit. He's a fellow "anti-colonialist," a fellow theoretician of Third World socialism, and a fellow supporter of all kinds of violent leftist groups. Barry and Muammar are two of a kind. If Barry does intervene in Libya, the odds are it'll be on Qaddafi's behalf.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama: the Hamlet of Hyde Park
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObamas problem of course is that as US president he is the focus of human rights in the world. A job that presidents in the past have embraced, but which he avoids because it is thankless and dificult. Hamlet at least was not a whiner, he new what he had to do and set about doing it for better or worse. The O has had every thing go easy for him, rising to be president. Alas for him and us there is no higher he can go so now he must actualy do his job. A job that is not fun.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust wait until we have our humanitarian moment after the Libyan rebels are defeated and the losers all head to the Egyptian border en masse . Everyone will be there to assist in the humanitarian crisis . Another latter day Hungary is in the making , only Gadaffi will be much more crazy and vicious than the Soviets ever were in 1956 . Most likely the decision not to intervene in the Libyan civil war was made well in advance . Washington needs cover so they can concentrate on the budget and the Tea Party . We need to be get ready for a mass exodus into Egypt from Libya . The only recourse is to bring up the subject during next year's election campaign .
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm confident that Barry is going to get on top of the situation in Libya, just as soon as he gets the 1st daughters out on the BB court for a few games of HORSE. After all this business of ruling....errrr...leading...the country is difficult and a man has to have some time to relax. In the meantime we have good ole Joe "Hoof in Mouth" Bidum to "monitor the situation" and Mr. Clap on/Clap off himself James Clapper to give us updates. I'm feeling kinda good about the whole affair.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe question remains, does Libya offer a vital strategic interest of the United States? Putting morals, values, and humanitarian intervention aside, Libya offers zero net gain to the United States. Although Qaddafi is a ruthless dictator, he ditched his nuclear program and is shipping gas to Europe. There are also major questions yet to be answered. Do we think the rebels automatically want American-style democracy? Is Qaddafi going to return to an even more ruthless regime if he wins and thus we should aid the rebels since they will be less sinister? Are radical terrorist cells licking their chops at a possible stake in a new Libya government and we should thus support Qaddafi behind closed doors?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs an aside, please remember Mr. Hanson's comment that the southern European countries will never let us fly military missions against Libya. For this, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are well suited; keep a close eye on proposed budget cuts that would refute our unchallenged supremacy at sea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, agreed. Conscience does make cowards of us all. Let's see, to be or to do, do, or be, do be, do be do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@vandelay Great point - It doesn't *actually* matter what the president or this administration do. Every action he could take on any matter would be deemed to be incorrect by NRO and the right's pundits, not to mention the rabid userbase of the comments on this site.
Always remember that the primary goal of modern politics is to never, at any time, say something positive about the other side. You must hunker down and never, EVER let up the attacks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am amazed that people say things like "except for their oil Libya has no vital interest"...Let's see-since the Libyan fiasco oil has gone up costing our economy $billions but "there's no U.S interest"...Amazing...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe wonderful thing about being shamed into action by our morally superior European friends is that their pundits would retain their ability to chastise us for every shell that goes astray.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHillary is the more amazing of our "top two" foreign policy meisters. Mr. Obama sounds sincerely confused. But Mrs. Clinton speaks with gravitas about "not taking unilateral action" (...er, what or who are the other 'laterals', who might act with us, Mrs. Clinton?). When she's finished, you quickly realize that she has said basically nothing. But unlike the POTUS, who is clearly in over his head, she has 'gravitas'. Makes you wonder whether she has ever considered running for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe complaints about the Right’s supposed “unfairness” to Obama are quite entertaining for those who still remember the Left’s treatment of Bush. But they are also beside the point. Nobody has to be President of the US. If you are as clueless as the current occupier of this post, it would be an act of wisdom and patriotism to have refrained from even attempting to get elected. A supposedly intelligent person should have realised it. He did not so now he is fair game.
A more important point is that there is no one correct approach to running foreign policy and in retrospect one will always see “mistakes” and be able to make unprovable claims that a different course of action would have produced better results. But of thing one can be sure: a superpower (or any power that wants to retains some influence on events) has to retain credibility. Bush understood this one thing very well and whether his decision to liberate Iraq was right or wrong (in Zhou Enlai’s famous phrase “it is still too early to tell”) he understood what disastrous effect a “cut and run” would have on US credibility. Obama, on the other hand, does not know the meaning of the word. One has to hope for the sake of the world that the Americans will un-elect him at the first opportunity (I wrote “for the sake of the world’ for not being an American the US is not directly my main concern).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse