I’m not sure I ever thought I’d see the day that the United Nations, the impotent folks who prompted one of Lyndon Johnson’s better quips (“The U.N. couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if you printed the instructions on the heel!”), would look tougher than the president of the United States — since a U.N. resolution authorizing force is really a U.N. resolution calling for U.S. leadership to deploy the actual force.
I’d love to try to make out that this was all the result of a brilliant reverse-psychology strategy by Obama and Hillary Clinton — show restraint and subservience to the “international community,” which then finally awakens them to the sense of responsibility the U.N.’s founders envisioned way back in the 1940s, when Churchill, among others, hoped the U.N. would intervene against tyrants like Qaddafi . . . (one one-thousand one, one one-thousand two, one one-thousand three) . . . Nah.
It's worse than described. Obama changed his stance not after the UN but after the Arab League asked him to man-up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteven - I think you're being a little obtuse. If you were trying to think about how best to advance America's interests ... which is to say to arrange international intervention without arousing an anti-American backlash, isn't this EXACTLY how you would try to get things to unfold.
I mean, seriously, do you think the resolution would have passed this if it wasn't exactly what the Administration wanted to happen and the way they wanted it to happen.
My fear would be that the contrivance was probably a little obvious, and folks would not be that easily fooled ... but your reaction gives me hope!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTook much too long for this to have the desired effect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"since a U.N. resolution authorizing force is really a U.N. resolution calling for U.S. leadership to deploy the actual force."
And this assertion is based on what? Other than your obviously partisian desire to tear down the President. You offer no proof, cite nothing. You might as well just say it was a call for Martians to land and give us anti-gravity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Hayward
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe world is not a playground. I am glad we have a president that doesn't think with his gut and embroil our young men and women in pointless wars that do little to advance American interests. But hey, feel free to get a hard on for war p@rn that you won't be personally involved in and protest against the taxes that should be raised to pay for such adventures.
Bring in the Italian Centurions to Libya's coast first - they are closest. It was Roman outpost anyway back in the day. How many divisions has Italy? :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe live in strange political times when the Republicans describe international bombing campaigns as "manning up" -- it wasn't so long ago that the Republican position on Kosovo was... markedly different, shall we say?
I admit, I've been biting my nails the last few days wondering if we were simply going to sit there and let Qaddafi win.
But Obama really seems to have pulled things off -- the rebels are going to get NATO support, there's support from both the UN Security Council and the Arab League, and we're not on the hook to run everything ourselves.
Also, we avoided making ourselves look like needless interventionists, as we would've if we'd unilaterally intervened back when the rebels were so confident in their chances of success that they were kicking out British Special Ops teams and swaggering a bit.
Obama's strategy made me pull my hair out the last few days, but in the end it WORKED. I'm willing to admit that maybe he was the one thinking chess, and I was the one thinking checkers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"U.N. to Obama: Man Up"
Obama to UN: You first.
(talk is cheap, and resolutions are talk)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I have no doubt that LBJ made the remark about urine, boots and the U. N., it wasn't exactly a quip. That remark is much older than I am. I'm 63 and I distinctly remember hearing that dismissal before I'd heard of LBJ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is going to be very curious to see how the pop media reacts to the airstrikes against anti-aircraft located in schools, hospitals. Etc etc. Surely they will cover these actions the same as they would have with Bush as president. Will be interesting to see.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Man Up"? Maybe we should be more conservative with our applications of military force, especially as we don't seem willing to pay for these adventures.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy leg is warm and wet, but they keep telling me it's just raining...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I’d love to try to make out that this was all the result of a brilliant reverse-psychology strategy by Obama and Hillary Clinton" --
I see Obama and Hillary not as conspirators, but as rivals.
Interesting, wasn't it, that Hillary -- just in the last day or so -- dropped her little message about not continuing as Sec/State beyond this term.
Her sly silence and quiet ineptitude appears calculated to make Obama look so bad that he will not run again. And Hillary will be waiting in the wings, ready to serve.
Result? Hillary's ambitions realized, all for the small (to her) price of many dead and much destroyed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTelevangalist: "But Obama really seems to have pulled things off -- the rebels are going to get NATO support, there's support from both the UN Security Council and the Arab League, and we're not on the hook to run everything ourselves."
One problem - the rebels are all dead, or will be before the UN or NATO ever gets their act in gear. So what's the point?
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not in support of US involvement. I disagree with the NRO editorial endorsing a no-fly zone. It's a humanitarian crisis, but so is Rwanda for which we seem perfectly willing to sit on the sideline.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe world hasn't leared a dam*ed thing in the last 10 years.
The rebels thought what happened in Egypt would happen in Libya. In doing so they proved two things:
1) Mubarak was extremely restrained, and by Middle Eastern standards he was a fairly resonable man.
2) Qaddafi is not.
The rebels miscalculated, and they lost. The UN resolution is a Hail Mary pass.
Obama's is not being told to "man up" by the UN. If Obama makes a decisive decision he might be wrong, and he *can't have that*, so he's hiding behind mommy's skirt. And all this is going to do is intensify the violence and prolong it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh wait, I forgot. If you are a Democrat and you vote to send troops into combat, then you are free to change your mind later. All you have to do is claim you were lied to, and then work to undermine the troops.
Obama is in the clear!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll these cutesy anti-Obama digs. Guess the 8 years of George W Bush stupidity hasn't yet registered on their closed minds. Or is it just hate? Bottom line is, America is not going to engage in a stupid foreign adventure, unless we get another Republican bomb thrower as president. "Man up" indeed. A Real Man thinks before he jumps. Only a moron jumps without thinking. What is quite apparent is Obama has been working behind the scenes to get a consensus for action and organizing the countries who will join us in doing it.
By the way, will the conservatives who want to attack Ghaddafi tell us just who we are fighting for? Do we know just who the rebels are, or their end objectives are for Libya.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnless you're actually planning on doing any fighting yourself, you've got no business saying anyone needs to man up. It's easy to send young boys to die from the safety of your armchair. I'm more than a little sick of tough talking republicans who are too cowardly to get their own hands dirty. If you want to advocate joining a war, fine. Just don't act like that makes you a tough guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is exactly what is happening here in the UK. The BBC just reported this morning it was Obama's restraint that lead to the Arab League, China and Russia supporting in the AL stance and not vetoing it by the China and Russia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Man up"? Oh, how cute!
Are you aware that we have been in two wars for nearly a decade? If so, how can you make such an asinine, frivolous comment on an extraordinarily serious topic?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse