Washington — John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells National Review Online that President Obama is dithering on Libya. “Every hour that goes by shows me how [Obama] is not ready for this,” he says. “I am feeling sick to my stomach that we are into something where the president does not know what he is doing.”
The president, in a short speech at the White House this afternoon, called on Moammar Qaddafi, Libya’s embattled leader, to step down and cease fire on civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies. Obama’s remarks focused on a U.N. Security Council resolution, passed Thursday, that authorizes military action.
Bolton notes that the president did not establish a deadline for Qaddafi or explain how he would proceed militarily. This lack of a clear strategy, he worries, could inflame the situation.
“We have lost a huge opportunity by waiting to act so late,” he says. “A real president would have had his military plan ready to go the minute that resolution was adopted, and he would have implemented it.”
“It sounds like [administration officials] are still talking, still considering,” he continues. “The conclusion Qaddafi may draw from this is that he has more time. If that’s right, and we are not prepared to act, the position of the opposition will be even more difficult than it already is.”
Earlier this week, Qaddafi allies said that they would institute a cease-fire. However, reports of attacks against civilians continue to emerge. Obama, in his speech, said that any potential military action will be based around his desire to protect civilians.
“I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing,” Obama said. ”The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal — specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.”
Bolton is uneasy about Obama’s tack. The “well-defined goal,” he says, should also include more language about ousting Qaddafi. “I am worried that Obama’s thinking is so fuzzy, that those who say we are getting dragged into something with no end in sight may have a point.”
“Forget the cease-fire for a minute,” Bolton says. “Why not, right at the outset, take out his air defenses? That makes the point, too. And it’s not mere symbolic over-flight. That would make it clear that we have military force in-theater and we are capable of using it and we are not fooling around. That, at a minimum, sounds like something we could have done. It is an absolute prerequisite to a no-fly zone, as people have been saying. Why didn’t we do that right at the beginning? All I can say is, I’m nervous and I hope we take action quickly.”
Anyone expecting bold, daring leadership from Obama is living a fantasy. If pusillanimity is what you're looking for, he can certainly deliver. Obama's in way over his head now, and probably will be for the remainder of his one and only term. It's going to be a long four years, and not just for Americans. Elections do indeed have consequences. In this case, very negative consequences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow can it be that 43% of the population still thinks BO is competent? This includes my well educated, smart sister. What will it take for the scales to fall from their eyes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "not ready" label is wearing thin with me. Being "ready" implies that he was at least "willing" to be a leader.
In my mind, Obama's background clearly reveals he was never "willing" to ever take a leadership role. This unwillingness is currently on display. Unfortunately, whimps like him will make big mistakes trying to prove they are not whimps.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusein 24 hours we could easily establish a "nothing to fly zone" and a "no tank to drive zone" over the entire expanse of Libya ... cruise missles and smart bombs ... no boots on the ground needed ... and a few "accidental" strikes on some barracks wouldn't hurt ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"in 24 hours we could easily establish a "nothing to fly zone" and a "no tank to drive zone" over the entire expanse of Libya"
Never mind Libya, we could do the same thing over most of the world. Probably all of the world.
But "could" and "should" are two very different things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps the American people should have spent less time debating about Sarah Palin's qualifications to run for President in 2012 and spent more time worrying about the qualifications - or lack thereof - of the candidate we elected as President in 2008.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“I am feeling sick to my stomach that we are into something where the president does not know what he is doing.”
I felt the same way before the Iraq invasion, and I was right. I'm not saying Obama's on the right path here, but at least we aren't being fed misinformation regarding the threat to the US and our allies as we were in the Iraq situation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama in his speech talked about Gaddafi having to restore water and electricity in rebel cities. Going to war for oil is one thing, but going to war for the utility company is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of in my life. Is the ditherer-in-chief going to take time out from the golf course to assess electricity meters in Benghazi? This is insanity. Where is the 'not in my name' crowd when you need them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf all he is going to do is talk, he might at least sound marginally American instead of lame. How about saying of Qaddafi -
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He has abdicated government there, by declaring the people out of his protection and waging war against them" - that therefore he is no longer the ruler of Libya, and we will (1) defeat him and (2) hold free elections to establish a new and legitimate government?
Edward (Ted) Jason (aka Barrack Obama) is definitely in over his head. Allen Drury had this type of dithering president pegged decades ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have to disagree. Obama is doing exactly what the Democrats and most of the "international community" have long insisted we do: absolutely nothing, until given permission by the United Nations.
Whether that policy is correct or not is debatable. But he's following it intentionally, not because he's incompetent or unprepared.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama has always been an empty suit. Look at him when he is speaking and you can see the "I have no idea what to do" face.
VP Plugs Biden said this young President will be tested. Well, he has FAILED.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's interesting contrasting the comments here with the poll on the front page - 65% think it's a bad idea to go in at all. Yet they're apparently still ticked off Obama is not being unilateral and militarily reckless enough.
Phew, talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't. Sometimes right wingers seem to act like there's nothing worse than a considered approach. Whatever your principles are, you must act immediately, from the gut, and without regard for consequences, otherwise you're a pansy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama was not ready two years ago when he took office. How could anyone think that two more years on the campaign trail and on the golf course would change his readiness to deal with complex issues? If it does not come across a teleprompter Obama does not know how to deal with it.
This Lybian adventure if embarked upon will only lead to more trouble in the Middle East. Getting the US involved is not a good idea. Let the French deal with it. It would be the first time in a long time that they demonstrated any initiative.
Bolton's eagerness to get in there and do something turns me off. I like Bolton, but this is not a fight the US needs to engage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Obama is neither over his head nor incompetent in this mattter. He is simply doing what he has promised to do, making a new America, an impotent, weak America whose President will have no more authority in international affaris than does the crown prince of Lichtenstein. Nice work, American voters!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It's interesting contrasting the comments here with the poll on the front page - 65% think it's a bad idea to go in at all. Yet they're apparently still ticked off Obama is not being unilateral and militarily reckless enough."
Either that, or there's a significant disconnect now between writers on The Corner, and the conservative readership of NRO at large.
My guess is that the NRO staff has a little more appetite for military action in Libya than much of the rank file conservatives. Then again, judging by dissenting posts by Foster, McCarthy, and Kurtz, perhaps the distance is not so far apart after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuserelaxok says "Sometimes right wingers seem to act like there's nothing worse than a considered approach. Whatever your principles are, you must act immediately, from the gut, and without regard for consequences, otherwise you're a pansy."
Alternatively, if you wait just long enough, right up until just after the bad guys have slaughtered all of the innocents, all the while
..carefully..reading..from..your..milqetoast..scripted..comments..
all of the lefties will celebrate you for how "cerebral" you are. And of course, if that doesn't work, just whine about how tough the job is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Admin want process not action. To wait two/three weeks before acting on a situation is not thought-ful consideration, but thought-less-ness to abandon tens of thousands of people to be butchered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseto relaxok
I think what's confusing you is the matter of timing. Had the US intervened with a no-fly zone on behalf of "protection of civilians" 10 days ago, when it would have made a difference, that would have been one thing. Ater all, the Arab League gave the idea its blessing almost a week ago.
But by waiting for the UN to bless our actions, we have shown a very bad preference to the rest of the Arab world (including its co-religionists in Iran), and we have dithered too long to make a difference in Libya anyway. "Better late than never" does not apply here.
Lack of clarity on Bam's part has led to a result that very well may accrue against our interests (something approximating a democracy, and certainly the elimination of Qaddafi, a known enemy of the US).
No question this has been a tough call, but Mr. Obama has voted "present" on a number of issues lately (the deficit, Egypt, Iran and Libya)and consequently shown himself incapable of leadership. He has held his ground over continued support for nukes, a mixed blessing in its own right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmbassador Bolton, to his credit, has been worried about the fitness of Mr. Obama from the get-go, a position many of us had well in advance of the election of 2008. After all, what level of performance can one reasonably expect of a "Community Organizer" with no other visible qualifications in his CV?
At every turn this man has been a disappointment. On Johnny Cash's last CD, there is a rendition of the song "Hurt". It fits all too well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse