I’m a recovering neocon. And so there is no confusion, by “neocon” I just mean adherent of the Bush Doctrine. And so there’s no confusion on that, by “Bush Doctrine” all I mean is the National Security Strategy of 2002. I say “recovering” since, though I’m a good six years clean and sober, I don’t think you can ever really be cured of this affliction — you just take it one day at a time.
So I’m especially concerned to see that the shoddy conduct of the Libyan intervention thus far seems to be co-opting all the worst aspects of Bushism and none of the good bits. And worst, the blundering here seems a direct result of the president’s overarching concern with avoiding certain signifiers of the Bush Doctrine — with avoiding the mere appearance of Bushism.
To avoid the appearance of American imperialism, the administration dawdles in the U.N. Security Council, wasting precious days and weeks during which the complexity of the situation on the ground — and of any commensurate intervention — increases geometrically. But to avoid the appearance that we are launching a(nother) Mideast military adventure at all, the administration doesn’t bother going to Congress to ask for an authorization of the use of force.
To avoid the appearance of “unilateralism,” POTUS and SecState Clinton take great pains to assure us that this is not an American-led effort, but an American-supported one, and that overall command will be turned over to the Europeans in “a period of days.” As a result, we have no clear command structure over a slapdash coalition that is already falling apart: Qatar won’t fly combat missions; Italy is threatening to pull the use of its airbases unless NATO steps in.
To avoid the invocation of the of dread “regime change,” our commanders and NSC staff are telling every reporter who’ll listen that it’s “not about” killing or even ousting Moammar Qaddafi. So instead, as Jennifer Rubin puts it, we run the risks of 1) “paralyzing Libyan military figures trying to decide whether to join the opposition,” 2) letting other players in the region perceive that we are an “unserious and unreliable superpower,” and 3) risking domestic support from otherwise hawkish congressional critters who “don’t understand the point,” of the intervention given the administration’s confused and confusing statements.
Mr. President: if you thought Bushism was bad, wait’ll you see the fruits of half-assed Bushism. You’ve already decided to do this thing, best to do it right. If you’re going to get wet, as they say, you may as well go swimming.
Remind Lockerbie orphans and widows again: What’s the statute of limitations on mass murdering American civilians?
And can folks safely assume you’re satisfied that we got KSM? and will now let OBL escape justice?
Recall, Libyan officials now confirm what everyone suspected. Kaddafi (personally) masterminded the Lockerbie bombing.
al-Megrahi was Lockerbie’s KSM. The Kaddafi regime is (once again) a legitimate terrorism target.
Nemo me impune lacessit
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh but you see, I don't think Bushism was bad, and I do think the left and Obama in particular were shameless and beyond useless in pretending it was. And yes they were pretending, out of pure partisanship. I'm will William Kristol on this one, and Bush for that matter, and all of the neo isolationist junk I'm now seeing from half of the right turns my stomach.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDan,
I too am a recovering freedom agenda victim, least that's how I like to put it. That way I can avoid blame for supporting what were, in retrospect, stupid ideas. I'm a victim.
Anyway, I think you touch on the unifying theme of the Obama administration and maybe po-mo liberalism in general. That is, everything is about addressing the slights, sore feeling and boo-boo's of the last 30 years.
The Obama agenda is simply a do-over going back to Reagan. All of the bad things, real or imagined (mostly imagined), are to be reversed by the One.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSchoolboys who can't even keep genders straight should not mess with The Language.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the Libyan intervention thus far seems to be co-opting all the worst aspects of Bushism"
Not at all. President Obama has not sent in ground troops, and far too few troops to do the job properly at that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK fine.
How did Obama manage to get Russia and China to sign up for even "half-a**ed" Bushism? I would have thought they would dig in their heels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIraq: disaster. Afghanistan: disaster. Tunisia: disaster. Egypt: disaster. Libya: disaster. Where are the Bush Doctrine's success stories? There are none, and there will never be any. All of these Muslim nations, and every other Muslim nation liberated from a secular dictatorship, will inevitably slide into a sharia law theocracy. A secular dictatorship, for all its evils, is in fact the only form of government with any possibility to protect American interests in the Muslim world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama has NO foreign policy experience (which is why he hired Hillary, and then doesn't listen to her). All he has is a vague theory of a weak internationalism, which is why the Bush Doctrine troubles him so much (it is too decisive), so it should not suprise anyone that he acted as he has in a situation he is wholly unequal to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse180 Out, the only disaster I see is in your logic.
Iraq isn't a disaster. Afghanistan is far, FAR from ideal, but it's not yet a disaster. Tunisia and Egypt are just in the early stages of upheaval-- who knows if they're going to qualify as disasters (I don't, and you don't). And there is nothing "inevitable" about a slide into a sharia law theocracy, despite your misplaced certainty. And no one knows if secular dictatorships are the only form of government with any possibility to protect American interests in the Muslim world.
But other than all that... you're completely right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr Foster's opinion reflects my own almost exactly. For weeks, the Obama administration went out of its way to avoid an aggressive posture, then, boom, it proceeds straight to actual aggression. It's stupid. We didn't really give Gaddafi a chance to back down. Using poker as an analogy, we're incurring the full risk of going all-in while getting none of the tactical advantage.
Anti-Bush people--Obama being foremost among them--just couldn't entertain the possibility that the former president's Freedom Agenda was born out of lessons learned from 9-11, namely that young people in Muslim societies, when their personal aspirations are thwarted by repressive governments and are denied even a way to express their frustration, will turn their rage toward the only avenues available: against America and Israel. One might not accept this analysis wholeheartedly, but should at least be able to see its plausibility. The American Left would have none of that. Anything that Bush says, does, or believes in, is a priori and in toto illegitimate. When lines of reasoning are completely shut off, of course, what we get is incoherence and utter stupidity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the way home thinking about it and then reading Danny Leong's post, I think the Obama foreign policy is best described is an anti-policy.
So far, we hear a long list of things we will not do in Libya. There's little talk about what we will do. There's no talk of what Obama hopes to achieve in Libya. Looking back, the Obama foreign policy has been all about the list of things we will not do.
This is emblematic of what has become of Liberalism. It is a reactionary husk of its former self. Instead of the long list of grand prophesies, it is simply a list of excuses for not doing anything. Once in a while they throw in some old hobby horse like socialized medicine.
Maybe this is what a political religion looks like in the end days.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour post seems to contain an error. The article linked to says UAE won't fly combat missions. It does not state that Qatar won't. They committed four planes to fly with the French.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@eloris - Russia and China arent't helping out. They didn't veto, the just abstained from voting. Voted "present", if you will.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no question Kaddafi (or however we are spelling his name now) needs to be gone. He should have been gone long ago. However, he is not a target for removal, according to the administration.
I have yet to hear a lucid rationale for taking any military action in Libya, and my heart breaks for all the mothers and fathers whose sons and daughters are unfortunate enough to serve under such a leader and these rules of engagement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, don't further confuse the term "neocon" by assenting to the definition of its enemies.
Second, the National Security Strategy of 2002 is one of the finest products of modern American government. That we don't have the will to follow through on its long-term vision says nothing about its merits as a policy. It does, however, have much to say about our slowly degenerating, desiccated character as a nation. Ten years on, we have reverted to a September 10th people.
The "recovering addict" theme is a rhetorical flourish not to be taken literally. Understood. But focus your frustration on the real source of our difficulties: ourselves. The British Empire -- the very pinnacle of liberal democratic civilization -- had no trouble implementing a policy like the NSS-2002. A third of the world, now civilized, thanks them. If we were still a proud empire on the rise and dedicated to Pax Americana, we would colonize and evangelize without apology. We might even have pulled it off with aplomb.
But what is the very model of the modern metro-'merican if not apologetic to his marrow? Foster's quasi-facetious groveling is quasi-nauseating.
It serves no one to adopt the lexicon of the disloyal opposition even as we allow the degeneration of far more useful (and exceedingly relevant) terms like "colonial" and "imperialism" and "The [Western!] Man's Burden." They win by first emasculating the language.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe tippy-toes about the issues and stomps all over the Constitution . What a schmoozer of a so-called leader.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse