President Obama just gave a weird speech. Part George W. Bush, part trademark Obama — filled with his characteristic split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes.
His support for those “yearning for freedom all around the world” was the sort of interventionist foreign policy that a Senator Obama — if his past reaction to the removal of Saddam Hussein is any indication — would have objected to, especially in the case of sending bombers over an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country. Since Saddam was a far greater monster (gassing thousands is far worse than turning off the water to neighborhoods) than the monsters that Obama now wishes to slay, I think he has confused rather than enlightened his audience.
There was no mention of the Congress. Is he going to ever ask its approval? And if not, why the repeated emphasis on asking others such as the Arab League or the UN for their approval — given that their representatives, unlike ours, are largely not elected?
In a speech dedicated to clarifying our policy, it left it even more murky. What was our objective, and what is it now? Obama asserted that “We have stopped his deadly advance.” But is that the aim — the status quo, and a sort of permanent safe zone for rebels in accordance with UN directives? Or are we going beyond that to eliminate Qaddafi, who is the source of the problem? The president now says he won’t overthrow Qaddafi by force, but that is what he hopes, in fact, will happen as a result of our military presence:
Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
This is reminiscent of George H.W. Bush’s declaration that he wanted Saddam gone, had used our military to save Kuwait, but not to remove Saddam, urged others to remove him — and then ended up solving one problem while creating another more violent and unending.
Constant reference was made to UN sanctions, in contrast both to the costs incurred in Bush’s Iraq, and the dithering by Clinton in the Balkans. He talked of allies, of joint operations, and a diminished American role to come. But again, to fulfill the UN mandate of saving the Libyans, he is going to have to violate — or at least go beyond — it by going after Qaddafi, a task he now seems to have outsourced to the Europeans, after ceasing the Tomahawk attacks on key Libyan ground installations. Why brag that “we targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply” when we are not going to do it any more, in admission that to do so would be going well beyond a UN-sanctioned no-fly-zone?
Translation: It now seems good to have removed Saddam, but too costly. It was good to remove Milosevic, but it took too long. So I will remove Qaddafi much more quickly and at far less cost, but I won’t do it by targeting Qaddafi, but by preventing his aircraft from flying and hoping Qaddafi goes away. Qaddafi deserves our special intervention because he is worse than other dictators, such as an Assad who is a “reformer” or Ahmadinejad whom we won’t “meddle” against. We successfully sought a UN resolution to protect the people, and will stick by it, but hope somehow someone will go beyond it and remove Qaddafi. We are an exceptional nation that has always acted out of humanitarian concerns in a way not true of other countries (“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”), but unfortunately in this case
the United States will play a supporting role — including intelligence, logistical support, search-and-rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military, and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly.
Somehow, I don’t think Qaddafi will be impressed enough to step down; the European allies will be somewhat confused over the degree of future American support; the rebels will wonder whether they should take Tripoli or should settle for a zone of sanctuary; critics won’t know whether Obama will ever consult the Congress; we still don’t know why Qaddafi was worse than an Assad or Ahmadinejad — or who or what the rebels are and what the U.S. role will be to ensure something better than Qaddafi.
Other than that, it was yet another well-delivered, split-the-difference, mellifluous Obama speech that said essentially nothing of substance.
I don’t think Prof. VDH is upholding his duty as a critic to consider the best possible reading of his opponent’s argument.
President Obama is talking about cost-benefit analysis informed by national values, in the reasoning that you caricature in your last long paragraph. And strategically, yes, he’s committing to a harass and contain, multilateral approach rather than massive resource commitment followed by nation-building. You don’t have to agree with it but you can’t dismiss it as incoherent.
Also, what you call Obama’s “split-the-difference, straw-man (“some say, others say”), false-choice tropes” are better seen as his combination of law-prof analysis and community-organizer leadership. He surveys the range of viewpoints on an issue before explaining his view and where it fits, often taking care to draw aspects from the others that he supports. This is a way of trying to build consensus around his view.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLost among the platitudes and circular reasoning was the unequivocal pronouncement that putting a stop to illegal immigration is in the national interest: immigration from Libya to Egypt and Tunisia, that is. Illegal immigration into other countries evidently continues not to be a matter of national interest.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHarvard Men At War
From up upon the podium in tailored suit and tie,
Between the flags of freedom crossed, and in the public eye,
The Harvard man made his address to critics, in reply,
And laid out for the audience his modern battle cry.
Recall that other Harvard man, who at the San Juan Hill,
Did call ‘Rough Riders, follow me!’ and led the charge until
The foot soldiers and cavalry were summoned by his will,
And overcame the enemy with valor and with skill.
Not for our modern Crimson man do words like those resound,
For in their stark grave melody is heroism found.
Instead we hear of diplomats who finally come around,
And handing off the fighting with no boots upon the ground.
So rally ’round the UN flag: we fight for powder blue!
Leave well behind the stars and stripes, and patriotic hue.
We’ll fight for days or weeks for sure, and then we’ll say adieu,
And hope our allies have resolve and heart to follow through.
thebardofmurdock.com
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of his foreign policy speeches feel like every comment and marginalia is taken by him as Gospel and duly inserted into the text. That's why he can't do ten minutes from the Oval Office. It has to be 35 minutes. He's a lousy editor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn foreign affair, on top of the Obama's vagueness, is his compulsion to openly insult George W. Bush (who was unfailingly gracious to him), and to constantly, subtly, assault American sovereignty. What a caustic, relentless and dangerous tactic. At the best case, he must be convinced that the world is better if Bush is discredited and the US shares leadership responsibility. That said, let's just say that I am not a believer in best case scenarios.
I want to believe that his tactic won't be successful, but Obama has a lot of resources to shape public opinion and no apparent shame in stealing from Bush's playbook even as he condemns Bush relentlessly.
Maybe it has been forever thus in human or even American affairs, but it sure seems that we have a uniquely bad President right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImpeach the Impostor and War Criminal !
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Iraq section of the speech is the perfect example of Obama's inability to say no. Some Political advisor of his sees a poll that shows support for the Libya campaign is weakest among Independents and Democrats and so, they better remind them of how awful Iraq was and, in the speech it goes. He also essentially said we dawdled on Bosnia which I'm sure President Clinton was thrilled to hear. Both of those sections should have been cut.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot only his text was discombobulated and meaningless, but his delivery really bugs me. He always sounds insincere, and his delivery is sing-song and arrogant.
Give me mispronounced "nuculear" instead of nuclear any time in the place of this tripe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI worry about those "bitter clingers" progressives as they hold on to their guns and their "Rules for Radicals" and go off to enlist in the US military so they can protect and defend the integrity of the UN?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere was a crucial, missing element to this speech that is worse than the flaws you ticked off, Dr. Hanson. Who, exactly, are these rebels? Reports have surfaced that they are in part al-Qaeda, in part Muslim Brotherhood, and overwhelmingly Islamists. If this proves true, and a neutered Libyan dictator is replaced by a potent one hellbent on killing Americans again, this will represent one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in American history.
This is why Obama failed to go into any detail about who is assisted here, rather than who was stopped. In the end, though, that is a subject that cannot be avoided no matter how compliant the media is with Obama's narrative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with the criticisms so far expressed but I would give the president some leeway in the specification of activities which could accomplish the policy objective. Presumably we are in fact initiating or supporting various approaches to undermine the morale and commmitment of Gaddafi's forces and cronies, even to turn some of the flexible against Gaddafi, and I have to think such moves are inherent in the president's reiterated distinction between the objective of our policy and the UN's resolution. At this stage, it could well be premature to be more specific about such activities. Also, I actually suspect that the Libyan opposition and the French and British may well be better suited for such work. However, my minor point is that the criticisms are sound but it is also the case that we should accept a level of nondisclosure about the details of (presumptive) plans supporting our policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to quibble, but VDH says "there was no mention of congress". However, Obama said (check the "full text" of the speech): "And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973". First I've heard of this. It sure perked up my ears when heard him say it. I'd really like to know specifically who he consulted with, and the details of that consultation. I'm sure the MSM will be all over this little item, since lack of congressional approval has been a matter of considerable debate lately.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProf. Hanson, I agree with you entirely, except for your characterization of U.N.S.C. Resolution 1973. So long as we don't create an occupation force, it leaves us entirely free to use military force against Kadafi personally.
In 1950, we went almost all the way to the Yalu River on the authority of U.N.S.C. Resolution 83 -- the one which merely "recommend[ed] that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area." Resolution 1973 is even more obviously open-ended than that, except for the bright-line prohibition against an occupation force.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama only objected to "interventionist foreign policy" and to "sending bombers over an Arab Muslim oil-exporting country" because George W. Bush was doing it. Obama will say anything so long as it serves his ends. Or in this case, say nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you suggesting that Qaddafi's greatest crime has been turning off water? Are you suggesting that retribution for a massacre that occurred decades prior is a reasonable justification for war while preventing or stopping a present massacre is not? Strange, I don't think we would be hearing these criticisms if a Democrat was not in the White House. Just a hunch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe'd be better off ignoring every false choice which a supremely opportunistic politician either deplores or offers. President Obama often does both.
How about a foreign policy with a long term strategy: arm, advise and collaborate with opposition parties and forces in any theater, with a serious and consistent purpose of ferreting out the most genuine (i.e., those most likely to consider us as an ally in the longest term project of all, the struggle to install greater liberties to any who are willing to fight for them.)
Notice I said greater liberties, not perfect. Here's betting that one of the benefits from a long term effort like this would be greater insight into these rebel/ opposition groups, insight that would tend to guarantee success of the project as a whole.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe keep electing (and reelecting) leaders that can't think. It was speech-previewed with the headline: 'We don't make decisions ... based on consistency or precedent'...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does ANYBODY with a brain still try to figure this guy out? He's an empty suit, an even-emptier-headed Jimmuh Cahtuh, a Clintonesque ego with a Barney Fife resume.
He's an idiot, and the sooner we are rid of him -- and the puppeteers (read: Soros and friends) who pull his strings -- the better off we'll be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI posted my own take on the speech last night, essentially the same points: "There is no Plan A - Hope is not a method and wishes are not plans." See External Link
But I am increasingly drawn to the thought that Obama actually has great clarity on what he is trying to do in Libya, for which Qaddafi's fate is little related.
This administration has placed American military employment subservient to the United Nations and, most particularly, the Gulf States.
Community organizer that he is at heart, this president believes that only the "international community" can authenticate or authorize military actions by the United States. Since in this case the target is an Arab country, the endorsement of the Persian Gulf states was required. Since the Congress represents neither the "international community" nor the Arab states, then not only is Congress's authorization not needed, it would actually be counter-productive by maintaining the unjust position that America's national self-interest is predominant. This compulsion to subordinate US military operations to the "international community" also explains why the president has vowed to hand operational control of American forces over to a European authority (just who is yet to be determined).
By at least conceptually placing America's interests and the use of its military second or third to the "international community's," Secretary Clinton and President Obama likely believe that their main purpose in this intervention has already been accomplished, no matter the outcome on the ground in Libya.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a registered Republican who is certainly no great fan of Barack Obama, I have to applaud him for his decision, albeit belatedly, to intervene in Libya to protect Libyan civilian lives and, even though he won't come out and say it, to remove Muammar Qadaffi from power. Qadaffi is a two-bit thug with the blood of innocent American civilians on his hands. He should have been taken out a long time ago. We can't miss this golden opportunity to remove him now.
Like many others, I get very tired of Obama's constant mealy-mouthed prose, his lawyer's instinct to always be looking to first cover his butt in every situation. But one must give credit where it is due. While his budgetary policies here in the US have been an absolute disaster as has his sycophantic sucking up to organized labor, in foreign policy he has manned up much better than I thought would be the case when he was first elected. He didn't cut & run in Iraq, he doubled down on Afghanistan, he increased Predator strikes in Pakistan, and now he's helping to oust Qadaffi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse