President Obama has entered a perplexing stage of his Presidency. For someone who campaigned so vociferously against military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, it leaves one scratching his or her head trying to figure out what he is doing in Libya.
Aside from that, what are the reasons for taking military action these days? Such reasons should never change, as principle is something that does not change. The principle of national interest has not been addressed by President Obama. What is our national interest? It would be wise for the President to spell it out clearly to the American people, and indeed to Congress.
Our country certainly has an interest in seeing Qadaffi go and in Libya becoming a free, democratic capitalism that is friendly to the west. This may be pie in the sky, but any Islamic nation that embraces democracy, freedom and capitalism is likely going to be good for the United States. Gaining an ally in a rough neighborhood would certainly bring us many benefits.
Rather than be direct about our interests, the President is telling us that Qadaffi is “unfit to serve” and that we need to protect the innocent people of Libya from Qadaffi’s attacks on them. As we do this, shouldn’t we know what the final objective is? Is it to “protect” them indefinitely? To what end? Please, tell us.
And telling Congress wouldn’t be a bad idea either, especially coming from a President who bragged about how this administration would be the most open administration ever.
It is further problematic that Vice President Joe Biden, while campaigning in 2007, stated that if then President Bush “takes this nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.” I’m certainly not advocating impeachment or even kicking the word around irresponsibly like Biden did, but this all sounds so strange. Is this the same Obama and Biden we saw during their campaigns?
Then of course there is the prosecution of this war. Excuse me, not war, the enforcement of the no-fly zone. We are clearly the biggest, most powerful member of the coalition, yet we want to cede control to someone else? Why? Because the President is apparently more concerned with appearances than with getting a job done correctly.
It was also his obsession with appearances that has leap-frogged our national interest. To put it politely, the President wanted to make certain we didn’t offend the Chinese and Russians when obtaining vague permission from the UN to take action in Libya. In reality, President Obama essentially allowed China and Russia to be the gateway to pursuing our national interest, however ill-defined that currently is by the President.
Not defining our national interest clearly enough, ceding control to a committee, allowing other countries hostile to freedom and democracy to control how we go about pursuing our interests and not consulting directly with Congress all bode poorly for a start to this war, er, no fly zone enforcement and possible support to rebels campaign.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Mr. President: A Time for Action
Mr. President, you appear to have been caught in a pickle. When the rebels in Libya gained momentum in the early days of their rebellion, you piled on by strongly denouncing Qaddafi and calling on him to resign, labeling him “unfit” to serve.
How things can change. Our country’s top spymaster just told a Senate committee that Qaddafi has stabilized his position and that if the situation continues as such, “the regime will prevail.”
Word on the street is President Obama is strongly opposed to military force in dealing with Qaddafi, even if just to arm the rebels.
So which is it? Do we support removing Qaddafi or not?
Mr. President, you will simply wear down your political capital by throwing such strong words around without much to back it up. President Teddy Roosevelt’s advice that it’s best to speak softly but carry a big stick appears not to impress you at the moment.
The actions your administration has taken include freezing some Qaddafi assets and planning to go to the UN to do something. While pinching Qaddafi’s assets will cramp his style, he’s locked in to a fierce military battle for his life. Meanwhile, what the UN will do is anyone’s guess, not exactly a serious threat at the moment.
This is not leadership. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
Mr. President, it’s time to realize the hard realities of being leader of the strongest country in the world. This requires making tough decisions, and at times, taking serious action.
No one said being President would be easy, and dealing with a Libya in civil war is certainly a serious test of Presidential gumption.
But telling the world the US is strongly against military action does not help our diplomatic cause. It removes one of our most important tools in dealing with the problem.
Furthermore, it trains other anti-American dictators not to fear the US. This is ironic given that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program when Bush was President out of fear the US was serious about cracking down on our enemies.
Obama is also reinforcing a message to protestors and potential freedom fighters in other countries that the US will cheerlead but will not take meaningful action in supporting them.
Perhaps, Mr. President, the worst part of the so far ill-defined policy you have employed is that it subjects our foreign policy to other countries on the UN. Do we really want Russia, China and other countries determining our geopolitical interests?
Working for some international consensus isn’t a bad thing, but removing ourselves from a strong leadership role dilutes our power and influence at a time when the free world greatly needs it.
So what to do, Mr. President?
For one, it would be wise for you to put the military option back on the table to enhance our diplomatic position, even if you secretly don’t want to use it.
Secondly, find a way to supply the rebels, at least covertly. If nothing else, it will buy you time to work out a diplomatic solution. This may seem paradoxical as most analysts decry a prolonged civil war as contributing to “uncertainty.” Uncertainty comes with the territory. A certainty we don’t want is a solidified Qaddafi, which will weaken any action the UN may ultimately take – if it ever does.
Lastly, you must move past the fear of the unknown. Secretary of State Clinton has made it a point to hesitate out of fear of not knowing who will emerge as a leader of Libya.
If we attempt to more positively affect the situation, we may have a lot more say in who leads Libya eventually than if we do not. And, if you continue to use words but offer no meaningful support, we will have not helped the new potential leader, who will naturally owe us nothing.
How things can change. Our country’s top spymaster just told a Senate committee that Qaddafi has stabilized his position and that if the situation continues as such, “the regime will prevail.”
Word on the street is President Obama is strongly opposed to military force in dealing with Qaddafi, even if just to arm the rebels.
So which is it? Do we support removing Qaddafi or not?
Mr. President, you will simply wear down your political capital by throwing such strong words around without much to back it up. President Teddy Roosevelt’s advice that it’s best to speak softly but carry a big stick appears not to impress you at the moment.
The actions your administration has taken include freezing some Qaddafi assets and planning to go to the UN to do something. While pinching Qaddafi’s assets will cramp his style, he’s locked in to a fierce military battle for his life. Meanwhile, what the UN will do is anyone’s guess, not exactly a serious threat at the moment.
This is not leadership. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
Mr. President, it’s time to realize the hard realities of being leader of the strongest country in the world. This requires making tough decisions, and at times, taking serious action.
No one said being President would be easy, and dealing with a Libya in civil war is certainly a serious test of Presidential gumption.
But telling the world the US is strongly against military action does not help our diplomatic cause. It removes one of our most important tools in dealing with the problem.
Furthermore, it trains other anti-American dictators not to fear the US. This is ironic given that Qaddafi gave up his nuclear program when Bush was President out of fear the US was serious about cracking down on our enemies.
Obama is also reinforcing a message to protestors and potential freedom fighters in other countries that the US will cheerlead but will not take meaningful action in supporting them.
Perhaps, Mr. President, the worst part of the so far ill-defined policy you have employed is that it subjects our foreign policy to other countries on the UN. Do we really want Russia, China and other countries determining our geopolitical interests?
Working for some international consensus isn’t a bad thing, but removing ourselves from a strong leadership role dilutes our power and influence at a time when the free world greatly needs it.
So what to do, Mr. President?
For one, it would be wise for you to put the military option back on the table to enhance our diplomatic position, even if you secretly don’t want to use it.
Secondly, find a way to supply the rebels, at least covertly. If nothing else, it will buy you time to work out a diplomatic solution. This may seem paradoxical as most analysts decry a prolonged civil war as contributing to “uncertainty.” Uncertainty comes with the territory. A certainty we don’t want is a solidified Qaddafi, which will weaken any action the UN may ultimately take – if it ever does.
Lastly, you must move past the fear of the unknown. Secretary of State Clinton has made it a point to hesitate out of fear of not knowing who will emerge as a leader of Libya.
If we attempt to more positively affect the situation, we may have a lot more say in who leads Libya eventually than if we do not. And, if you continue to use words but offer no meaningful support, we will have not helped the new potential leader, who will naturally owe us nothing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
