When the mission in Libya and its methods are not clearly stated and the leadership role of the U.S. is not defined, then the ambiguities and paradoxes simply mount. The president’s statements and press conferences are only making things more oblique. Are we (and our European allies) or are we not targeting Qaddafi? Should he go, as the president once demanded, or not? Why are we so eager to claim a U.N. sanction to American action when we have not introduced the matter to the U.S. Congress for approval? At least we can say of our Congress that its members were all elected, which we cannot say of many in the General Assembly and some in the Security Council. I’ll pass on the Arab League, but the president for some reason in his statements thinks it is more important to justify American military force through a vote of approval from non-democratic states than his own country’s legislature. If we “tone back,” as the president promises, does he really think others will “tone up”? And given that our present toned-up role has not resulted in the departure of Qaddafi, what will the toned-down version do?
Instead, we ignore congressional approval, broadcast to our enemies all sorts of self-imposed limitations on our use of force, have not defined the mission as the removal of Qaddafi, on day three are promising less rather than more military force, have no clue what is to replace him, and seem uncomfortable with a leadership role that would define victory and take the necessary measures to achieve it.
Under those conditions, I am afraid this president has no business putting U.S. forces in harm’s way when he not only has not answered these questions, but apparently has never considered them.
But it probably sure gives his ego a boost to be able to order all those cool planes around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFG: Give his ego a boost? He needs no help there!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama seems to have no idea what he is doing and OJT is not appropriate here. Even Bush got repeated congressional approval. The hypocrisy of the left and Obama is just truly breathtaking and profound. It has to stop. I hope Americans realize what is happening and what is at stake. And no, the media is no help. But no problem, their product and their business model is doomed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe mantra of the Obama adminstration: "Do as I say, not as I do." Why do I believe there's disaster in the offing because of this hypocritical action?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If we “tone back,” as the president promises, does he really think others will “tone up”?"
I don't recall Obama being that concerned about "tone" when he demogoged Arizona and was successful in getting foreign countries to condemn a U.S. State.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll cut Obama a little slack here. After he saw the QuackDucky letter that he was Mr. Q's son, he had to act. Luke I am your father can not stand. Seriously, Mr Q. has been a menace to civilized society a long long time, I'll be glad when "we" take him and his sons out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs the man who commissioned the Lockerbie bombing, Colonel Q has to go. Who replaces him matters not to us, and we should take no stance after Q. is gone.
As I understand the War Powers act, President BHO has 90 days to get in and get out without Congressional approval.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook- the Rio trip accomplished a lot. The President got to play soccer instead of golf.
And when Japan is in ruins and the Middle East is in flames, the obvious destination for the US President is El Salvador.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWrong again, as partisan disdain continues to get the better of half of the pundit set.
The left was flat wrong in its opposition to the Iraq war. But now half the right wants to pretend they were correct, in a feeble attempt to score domestic political points.
It is fine to point out the hypocrisy of the left and Obama specifically in such matters. It would be fine to ask, have they learned now from the responsibilities of power that their past sniping was out of line? But it is not fine to pretend that Obama or the left generally was correct in every criticism of Bush over Iraq by repeating their outrageous behavior and pretending it is better when we do it.
Kristol has been a better guide on all of this than VDH. I am disappointed in him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is that Mr. Obama still thinks he is a senator, just one voice of many. So he says things as if he is testing the waters or making idle chitchat.
I feel for the guy. He had no leadership experience prior to becoming president and now people hang on his every word as if he were the leader of the free world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"... the president ... thinks it is more important to justify American military force through a vote of approval from non-democratic states than his own country’s legislature."
That's the affair in a nutshell. It distills what's "off" about our actions. It's not about "war powers" or whether or not the President has the authority to so what he's doing. It's about who's running the show ... We are catering to a bunch of cut-rate "powers" and dictatorships in the name of building "international consensus."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseZmac:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCannot stand? Come on, it's not like he cut off his hand....
There is a clear uncertainty who will rule Libya after Q, or K, depending on your soiurce. Within days ago the POTUS was qualming about how being president of Red China would be easier than POTUS. I would assume Libya would be even easier than China and I guess we could survive less than two years of an inane President Biden.
If that is not possible, certainly there are of spring of Italo Balbo, the governor general of Libya appointed by Mussolini for the 1930's. I have read he created a rather open society with a booming economy and great infrastructure improvements.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. VDH -- I agree with you this time (unlike this morning). We have a POTUS who is simply incompetent, incoherent and possibly malicious. This guy should not be running a war, especially one in which we have no interests; should we prevail, we will probably get a worse situation than the current one. Those "freedom fighters" are Muslim Brotherhood in drag. (And whatever the US does, it will be damned by the Muslims, so we might as well stay out.)
Must agree with conigliolo about the need for Obama to get Congressional approval.
JasonC - Not quite sure what your point is, but several things need to be pointed out: We invaded Afghanistan because that is where the Taliban was and they allowed Al-Qeida to function without interference and then acted to shield them. We invaded Iraq in 2003 because we thought that Saddam Hussein may have provided assistance to Al-Qaeda and we thought that he possessed deadly biologics he would share with Al-Qaeda. Where we went wrong in both instances is trying to democratize both countries. All we have succeeded in doing is making them safe for Sharia and unsafe for Christians. When we turn to Libya, it appears (but appearances may be deceiving) that as bad as Quaddafi has been, of late he has not been involved in nefarious activities. Also, see my comments about the "freedom fighters" in the first paragraph.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJasonC, the point is that Bush at least had a rationale for going into Afghanistan and Iraq. He went to Congress and made his case and got their approval. You may not agree with Bush's rationale or you may claim he duped Congress as some have, but at least he made his case. Obama has not articulated his reasons for attacking Libya or what the ultimate goal is and why it would be good for America, much less get Congressional approval.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Leader won.
He obviously intends to do whatever he wants to do, was elected to do, both or neither.
America has been far too decisive for far too long. Dear Leader feels like it's time for some affirmative indecision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood lord, what an ignorant post. Whoever Victor Davis Hanson is, he has a lot to learn about war and statecraft.
I also love how he thinks he can read the mind of the President and know what he's considered.
Yeesh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's hard to see how there is any hypocrisy to be found in VDH's position. He is not spanking Obama for deciding that we have a reason to become militarily involved in Libya. Instead, he is simply taking him to task for not thinking through his decision. I fully expect VDH would sound the same questions if Clinton or McCain were in the White House.
Most on the right are not badgering Obama to cease and desist military operations. They are requesting that he seek authorization from Congress, as both Bush Presidents did before engaging Iraq.
The other request is that he clearly define the mission, it's goals and the path to victory. Most are clearly calling for further engagement in seeking regime change.
None of these were criticisms from the left during Bush's presidency. In their approach, the right is being faithful to the constitution and the desire to use military engagement only where victory is an option.
As for the real repository of hypocrisy and double standards, please read this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Whether or not what we're doing in Libya is the right thing (I think we should either have pushed the OIC to police themselves instead of using us as the scapegoat, or gotten on board very early), I don't think Obama has a clue as to what he's doing. He does whatever the day's most persuasive advisor tells him. But the crux of it is that Obama has no comprehensive foreign policy philosophy.
I've maintained from the day he took office that his primary goal in life, perhaps his only goal, is the one he directly presented to us - to "fundamentally transform" the United States into, at the least, a Euro-socialist state. And more than that, HE wants to be THE ONE who is credited by history with doing it.
To this end all policy is aimed, including what little foreign policy stances he has. Foreign policy is important to Obama only if it can help him reach his domestic goal. It can help in two ways. First is to give him one more arena in which to bash his domestic opposition and drive more people to vote for the Democrat party. His second foreign policy goal is, or was, to appease our enemies in the hope that they would leave him in peace to enact his domestic policies. It didn't hurt that he's also partial to both appeasement and to our enemies but that's beside the point.
Neither of these "policies" is working out too well. Acting in Libya, and continuing to act in Afghanistan, may lose him support of even the Lefties who adore him and removes his ability to contrast himself with the Right's behavior (I'm not Bush). And his overtures to the Muslim nations hasn't garnered him any peace at home to work his "transforming".
Now that we're in Libya, we'd better finish the job. If Qaddafi stays in power now, how is anyone going to stop him from retailiating against the rebels? This is not going to be pretty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are right! The President hasn't had the time to considered all these facts. European politicians, especially the French conservatives, have exploited the naiveness and inexperience of Hillary, Susan Rice and Samantha Power in order to secure BP & Total operations in Libya at any cost. This is clearly the work of Alain Juppé.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom this perspective it's more than logic that Obama has no clue about the issue as the only element available to him is precisely the tool used to dupe him: the legal pretext.