This is rather extraordinary, from the New York Times this morning:
From the start, the administration insisted that it was acting to avert the imminent slaughter of civilians in Benghazi and other rebel-held cities, and that the goal of the military operations was clearly spelled out in the United Nations Security Council resolution.
Mr. Obama’s administration, however, has clearly tried to avoid the debate over a strategy beyond that by shifting the burden of enforcing the United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing force on to France, Britain and other allies, including Arab nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which on Thursday said that it would contribute warplanes to the effort. In other words, the American exit strategy is not necessarily the coalition’s exit strategy.
“We didn’t want to get sucked into an operation with uncertainty at the end,” the senior administration official said. “In some ways, how it turns out is not on our shoulders.”
Of course not! Why is that surprising? this Administration is the full flower of post- modern moral relativism in its purest expression. Statements like this are surprising to anyone exactly how?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSO:
As this egghead I'm forced to call "President" sees things, it is in the interests of those we are HELPING - the Libyan rebels - and in the interests of the American people (on whose behalf this egghead is supposed to be acting AT ALL TIMES) for the United States to have the very same role here in the Middle East as Europe did during the recent Kosovo crisis - a two-bit "me, too!" role that allows us to skate away whenever the ice thins out.
With all this well-coordinated benevolence and compassion they are set to receive, boy those Libyan rebels sure are fortunate! Thank GOD they didn't receive our help in the form of a coherent plan of action!
I have really bad news for this grossly naive administration:
If Quaddafi remains in power, YOU WILL OWN THAT OUTCOME! Not France, not the Arab League, not NATO, not even the U.S. (because all the world knows what we are capable of, if our straw-man scarecrow of a "leader" only had a brain that was a little less OVER-EASY). YOU WILL WEAR IT!
You don't get to dither away necessary American intuition, capability and fortitude at ZERO EXPENSE to Obama's domestic and international reputation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "egghead" is an untenured lecturer whose transcripts we have not seen and whose paper trail is being hidden. But he ha s a nice crease in his pants, so he must be intellectual. By this standard, so are most of the models in the Brooks Brothers catalog.
I'm not sure Obama wants Gadaffi gone, ut he will happily use this messy "strategy" when Israel defends itself against pali "strikes" to prevent "a humanitarian crisis" among the group that celebrates when an infant's throat is cut.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is simply breaking the spine of America. How long are we going to stand around like deer in the headlights with the look of WTH? When are we going to say NO MORE and mean it? If this destruction of America is not premeditated then it should be clear he does not remotely possess any top level leadership capability. Either way is unacceptable and must be dealt with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe must start realizing that Obama is NOT incompetent...he is malicious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the Administration's difficulties avoiding American responsibility flow from their own sloppiness, rather than the inevitability of that responsibility.
Yes, with the President talking so much about "Gaddaffi must go", while otherwise speaking so incoherently, it's going to end up on our shoulders.
We could have established the mission as equalizing the forces, by denying the regime the technological leverage to purge the opposition from a minimized base of active support. This would have admitted the possibility of his eventual victory, but would have forced him to mobilize popular support as widespread and active as the opposition. It's an unsatisfying mission, but I think it's coherent.
We could successfully execute that mission, without removing Gaddaffi. And in that event, we might plausibly say that the Libyans have to work out their government for themselves, and our involvement was limited to denying a murderous regime some of the most effective mechanisms of its murders. Perhaps that would still seem ineffectual, but I do think it is distinct from the current muddle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am amused by those who defend the use of "Professor" for Obama as he should not be denied use of a "courtesy title". Well maybe not, but as the Presidency is important perhaps the media should have abandoned fears about being called mean names for telling the truth about Obama's position and his qualifications rather than not telling the public that the man running for President was not really a serious academic after all.
If he was a real serious and lauded academic there would be scores of articles available in academic journals as that is sort of the standard for the job of "Professor", not the "courtesy title, though. Sort of like calling Oprah "Doctor Winfrey" because of some honorary degree.
But let's keep up the facade that he is an "intellectual" or a "professor" like in Krauthammer's piece, eventhough it is no more real than his styrofoam Greek columns.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is the policy then why in the world did we go in. So the Obama administration is so concerned about saving Libyan's lives, but doesn't want to get sucked in because it can't guarantee the outcome.
This just goes to show that Obama cares more about his image than human rights. Besides that what does this tell our real allies about the US when the time comes that they need our assistance elsewhere including in their homeland.
I fear we have just been made the laughing stock, in more ways than one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is "imminent slaughter" happening all over the world! I don't see ANYONE stepping in is Syria, Dufar or anyother place that has genicide going on. Our President is only concerned with how HE looks at the end of the day. He is not a leader. He fills a leadership position with a bunch of followers, that doesn't make him a leader.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a pretty good example of why the founders wanted a commander-in-chief, not an ex officio member of a steering committee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse