“From Benghazi to Bahrain, Mr Obama is proving to be a brutal disappointment.” That is the concluding sentence of today’s editorial in the London Times. There it is — the editorial is reflecting a sea-change in public opinion. And it’s not just the persecuted inhabitants of contested Arab cities who feel this disappointment, but also people all over the world who not so long ago decided that Mr. Obama was hope personified.
Of course there is some humbug in the air as well. Those disappointed people have suddenly discovered that the United States is not going to be looking after them and they will be on their own. Europeans and Asians have devoted so many of their resources to creature comforts that they are not in a position to protect their peace and security. It’s a shock that Obama is the one leaving them to be self-sufficient, a condition to which so many have been unaccustomed for so long.
A White House deputy by the name of Ben Rhodes has explained that the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the world is “to work through multinational organizations and bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are taking are amplified.” (You don’t “amplify steps” unless you are trying to be misleading, but let that pass.) This multinational and bilateral stuff is just that — stuff — a recipe for inertia, arenas for self-important diplomats in which to generate hot air, to propose meetings and postpone them, to pass resolutions watered down until they are meaningless.
The Libyan tragedy illustrates this higher vacuity. Institutions designed for the multilateral and the bilateral, the Security Council, the European Union, the Arab League, daily prove that they serve no useful purpose. Worse, while they posture among themselves, Moammar Qaddafi and his thugs have been allowed to massacre those asking for their rights. That is the direct consequence of Obama’s decision that the United States no longer entertains an independent foreign policy but leaves everyone, including the likes of Qaddafi, to do as they please.
Shame is one aspect of it, and the surrender of the West is another. Qaddafi has a long record of terror. Once he has committed enough mass-murder to stay in power, he can take revenge by brandishing oil contracts as blackmail, restarting his nuclear program, joining forces with the al-Qaeda or other Islamists he pretends are his enemies, and much else. Obama’s refusal to commit the United States over Libya has given Qaddafi an international Get-Out-of-Jail card. First disappointment, then danger.
What was it that Churchill apparently said about a similar choice? "You had a choice between war and dishonor. You choose dishonor and now you shall have war."
If anything, the really amazing part is that Obama lasted this long before everyone had the scales drop from their eyes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat did anyone expect from a guy who as a Illinois senator voted mostly "Present"? Comrade Obama was never known as a decider,to those who paid attention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...the really amazing part is that Obama lasted this long before everyone had the scales drop from their eyes."
If only it was "everyone." 40-some percent of our fellow citizens think the ditherer-in-chief is doing a swell job.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust today I saw some fellow make a post on another site (not a liberal blog though, a computer tech site) where he stated, with a straight face, that Obama is one of the best, if not, THE best, of the American Presidents.
I'm not making this up.
And I saw another guy insist that if you have a problem with Obama, well then, you......are......a......(drum roll, please)......RACIST!
I often wonder, how do people like the ones I've mentioned here come to exist? What accident of nature has to take place to bring forth such slobbering fools?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem with Obama is that we are still paying for everybody's defense, and then he can't lead. Nonetheless, the U.S. does have a dilemma about how much power and leadership it can afford to pay for. The whole political and economic status quo is dependent on our defense spending in a sense. Europe has voted itself a month's vacation and 35 hour work weeks, retirement at 50 Greece, or more in other countries because we are paying 3 or 4% of GDP to police the world while they take advantage and pony up 1.5% These countries are welfare Queens on vacation. That said, what galls me to the utter ultimate is the snubbing by Obama of our allies, most especially England, in a week in which four or five of their boys died in the war. The Brits are our friends and have supported us through thick and thin, and through both Labor and Conservative governments, which obviously cannot be said of this current U.S. government. People in Europe don't have enough info to really make good judgments about Presidents, and superficial stuff driven by Media suffices. That is a problem. Likewise, Liberal media use Europe as some kind of Gold Standard when Americans have not been educated at all about anything, much less about Europe, by that same Liberal Establishment. So, yeah, after 2 years of Obama, I think we are beginning to see that this country really does need a lot of change and I would like to transform it in fundamental ways too. After all these years, isn't it ironic that the most iconic and prophetic event in the Reagan admin. domestically was PATCO!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse