Seems to me Obama and the US are in a bit of an impossible situation. We're already pouring billions of dollars (and lives) into Iraq and Afghanistan with very little return. Can we fight a third war in Libya? Rescue the Libyans from Khadafy, then have them turn around the next day and excoriate us for doing so, and demand we rebuild their country for them?
On the other hand there are over a million Libyan refugees desperate for help - if we had acted sooner, could all that human suffering have been avoided?
I don't know the answer...
Story #5: Wall Street Journal: Obama's Libyan Abdication
RUSH: On to Libyan business, this Wall Street Journal piece. This is interesting, too, because this fits, strangely enough, with what we're describing and what we're talking about here. The editorial from March the 6th yesterday in the Wall Street Journal: "Obama's Libyan abdication," and here's how the piece ends. "We suspect the real reason for Mr. Obama's passivity is more ideological than practical. He and his White House team believe that any U.S. action will somehow be tainted if it isn't wrapped in U.N. or pan-Arab approval. They have internalized their own critique of the Bush Administration to such a degree that they are paralyzed to act even against a dictator as reviled and blood-stained as Gadhafi, and even though it would not require the deployment of U.S. troops."
In other words, the Journal is saying: Obama's hamstrung because of the way they criticized the Bush administration, Bush went into Iraq, and it was a horrible mistake; and Bush went into Afghanistan, it was a horrible mistake. And all the never-ending year after year after year of criticism of Iraq has now handcuffed Obama. He can't do anything that might appear Bushian or Bush-like. (interruption) Well, Clinton didn't have the UN when he went to Kosovo, but he had NATO. That was a NATO operation. Pure and simple. NATO, UN, whatever, it does not equal USA. Remember Bush did not have either. Bush did not have NATO, didn't have the UN at all when he went into Iraq.
He tried and tried and tried and tried and tried. He went in and he tried to put together a coalition. He was undercut. Remember Dominique de Villepin and some of the brilliant Wizards of Smart, all those UN hearings, Security Council meetings and so forth. Anyway, the Journal is right. Obama and the Democrats have so ripped Bush (and by extension America) for what he did in Iraq that they really can't now go in and do anything in Libya and have any credibility. You might be saying, "What about Cairo and Mubarak?" Well, that's a little different. Obama really didn't have to do anything there. The mob was taking care of things, the Muslim Brotherhood was on the march. All Obama had to do was get out in front of it and say that he was inspiring them, but we didn't have to send anybody in there.
Here's the way the Journal op-ed piece closes: "Mr. Obama won't lead the world," and this is the key. "Mr. Obama won't lead the world because he truly seems to believe that U.S. leadership is morally suspect." Damn straight. Now, I'm sorry. As a resident of Literalville, when I read that, my reaction is: "Why doesn't think that?" I'm sorry, I don't care if I'm one out of a hundred Americans, I still had that reaction. Why does he think "US leadership is morally suspect"? 'Cause the answer to that, folks, is key, as far as I'm concerned. If the US is "morally suspect here," it's "morally suspect" everywhere.
If we got a guy running the country who thinks the country is "morally suspect," then don't we all understand how that is going to animate every damn one of his policies? Domestic and international. "But if Mr. Obama thinks George W. Bush was unpopular in the Arab world, he should contemplate the standing of America -- and the world reputation of Barack Obama -- if Gadhafi and his sons slaughter their way back to power." In other words: If Obama thinks Bush was hated over there, he better ask himself how he's gonna be viewed if Khadafy is able to genocide himself back to power in Libya. He's gonna have to wrap himself in the flag, "Well, you know, we don't have the moral authority.
"We're the United States of America, and it's not our place anymore." He said this. He said the American consumer is no longer gonna lead the world economy. But we can't point any of this out because it's too offensive, so we're gonna say, "His policies are wrong." Why? If we are so morally suspect we can't take on Khadafy, God help us! We've got a leader who is gonna put us lower on the morality ladder than Moammar Khadafy? Somebody help me! He's waiting for somebody else to take the lead 'cause he doesn't think we have any moral superiority over Khadafy?
Good grief!
In the interests of Order and Method: My Schedule of Regular Posts
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday througout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment