-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
This morning I was a guest on the Joy Cardin show, which is broadcast on Wisconsin Public Radio. The topic: Libya. My sparring partner: Alan Kuperman, an associate professor of public affairs at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs in Austin.
Kuperman used to work for left-wing Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and is against U.S. military action in Libya. I, of course, am a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy and support American involvement there.
When the mp3 file is available, I’ll post it here for American Spectator readers. In the meantime, here are a few quick thoughts and reactions.
1. The show’s producers, it seems, had a difficult time finding anyone who would support Obama administration policy in Libya.
They called me almost at the last minute, and sounded relieved to have found someone finally who, publicly and on record, would side with Obama. This reveals, I think, that the president and his administration have not done a good job of explaining and articulating U.S. foreign policy.
2. Although I support Obama’s decision to aid the Libyan rebels, I am hardly an uncritical cheerleader, as readers here know.
In fact, one of my biggest concerns is that American military involvement is too hamstrung by enfeebling conditions such as the president’s refusal to deploy ground troops or military advisers.
Moreover, Obama’s military objective is divorced or separated from his policy objective. The former is to protect the Libyan people and to avert a humanitarian disaster. The latter is to effect regime change in Libya by getting rid of Gaddafi.
These two policies ought to be inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing. That they’re not spells policy incoherence and possible policy failure.
3. Obama’s Libya policy lacks an overarching strategic purpose or rationale. It’s not that such a purpose or rationale doesn’t exist, because it does. The problem, for Obama, is that this purpose, by and large, corresponds with what his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush said:
It [should be] the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Indeed, Libya cannot and must not be divorced from the Middle East and North Africa region of which it is a part. American success or failure in Libya will have serious strategic consequences for Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon, et al.
Success will embolden democratic forces there. Failure, by contrast, will strengthen the hand of the autocrats and the Islamists who view America as the enemy.
4. The President of the United States must not be the follower-in-chief; he must be the persuader-in-chief. The American people are instinctively antiwar; they are against “entangling foreign alliances.”
It thus takes presidential leadership and persuasion, through use of the bully pulpit, to convince them of the wisdom of U.S. military action overseas.
Yet Obama has been stunningly reticent to speak out much, let alone to speak out with clarity and vision, about U.S. foreign policy. And, when has spoken out, it mostly has been to apologize for America’s alleged past wrongdoing, while warning of the limits of American power.
This won’t do. The danger in Libya is not that America will act too rashly, or that it will recklessly throw its weight around the world. The danger is that we are too meek and unsteady.
And so, what should be a quick and decisive military operation turns into a long and protracted stalemate. Does Obama really want his presidency held hostage in Libya?
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/23/on-libya-obama-must-lead
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Peace in Our Times
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Floyd Looney | 3.23.11 @ 11:24AM
The "No Boots on the Ground" President (Marines are getting ready) does not want to lead. France does not want to lead. Germany wants out, India is out apparently too, the Arab League is changing their mind.
The Keystone Cops Diplomacy is actually sort of amusing. Come to think of it.
Obama must lead... hahaha... he isn't a leader, he is an organizer who deals in agitprop... he doesn't want to get his hands dirty.
He probably will agree with France that a Political Steering Committee take charge of the Libyan Mission (doomed to failure).
Too Many Tims| 3.23.11 @ 11:39AM
Obama is an indecisive boob and that poisons everything.
rg| 3.23.11 @ 12:23PM
The era of the neocon, that is, liberal republican is fading.......
The era of hyper "free trade", mass immigration is fading.......
Only way out for the US is to produce energy domestically (at least much more of it) and reduce immigration. We needn't have half the world come here "to work hard". Americans are out of work in large numbers. Get it neocons? Stop obsessing with others around the world.
Can you say nationalism? I can and like it!
(btw, by nationalism I mean rational self interest and healthy patriotism, NOT nutty National Socialism).
Akaky| 3.23.11 @ 12:32PM
On Libya, the former junior senator from Illinois must lead what? I don't think leading is in his job description, at least not as he interprets it.
pete2| 3.23.11 @ 12:46PM
Read my lips...this is an illegal military action by Obama and should result in his impeachement. Now stop trying to analyze the damn war and start agitating for an end to it. Just what about illegal can't neo-cons understand?
All American American| 3.23.11 @ 2:21PM
Bro they're probably already figuring out how we can get involved in Syria or Yemen or something.
Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:07PM
Hey, some of us interventionalism supporters (kill Saddam, Kill Iran, kill the Taliban) don't like this war. It's being led by an ignorant idiot without ANY American interest involved in any way. Plus, the guys we're fighting FOR may be worse than the ones we're fighting AGAINST.
Jeez, I'm agreeing with Kucinich and Paul. My head hurts.
JFGalt| 3.23.11 @ 1:00PM
Why didn't we help out in Egypt. Why are we helping out in the other ME countries. We look like oil hungry boobs now just like we've been accused by all the Arabs states of being. We're stuck now with this tar baby and even if we come out on top its France that wins. Obama lied about getting out of Iraq. He lied about getting out of Afghanistan. He has lied about knowing how to do anything (other than taking vacations). He has lied about who he even is. Now he has got us mixed up in another expensive mess. But WHY are his most ardent supporters quiet. Where are the protests in defense of Libya. Where is liberal Hollywood's objections. What we have here is an exposure of the hypocrasy of the left. The silence is deafening!
Wayne | 3.23.11 @ 1:30PM
You support Obama and this war. Are you kidding. By the same logic as attacking Libya we can also start bombing North Korea, Iran and even Pakistan. Do you really want to start WW3? Nobody knows where this will end. Nobody. What if Iran gets involved? What if they say that unless we get out of Libya they will attack Israel? Then what do you? See how easily things escalate. WW1 started in much the same way.
We are NOT the policemen of the world. We are not obligated to the UN. How conservatives can support this illegal war is beyond me.
BarrytheChimpinChief| 3.23.11 @ 1:34PM
First, we don't get but a tiny amount of oil from Libya - the French, Italians and Brits get much more. We have large amounts of oil, natural gas, coal right here in our country. Why don't we tap more of it, huh enviro-lib weenies?
Secondly, this "war" is about one thing: Barry advancing his principle that the US is/has been too wealthy, too strong econ0mically and too strong militarily and we need to be brought down a few steps on the ladder, so as to have the Turd World "people of color" get a chance to shine in the sun.
Barry the Turd Worlder is at it again......
All American American| 3.23.11 @ 2:18PM
Seriously, you can't be "right wing" or "conservative" and support this---war? Police action? How about "Tomahawk Diplomacy?" (I coined it, I want props if you use it).
You supported the peace and democracy-loving Egyptian rebels and have egg on your face from that misadventure--and have been inconspicuously MUM on the aftermath in Egypt. Now we're finding out today that AQ and the Muslim Brotherhood might be behind the "rebels" in Libya. So basically if that turns out to be true, you're standing with the same people who flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon.
And you're "right wing?" Really?
Look, America is being used and used badly I might add. AQ is using our own tolerance and misguided love for "democracy" against us. Why should AQ fight to overthrow all of these muslim strongmen when they can round up some rag-tag "rebels," cry out on TV for American support in the name of "democracy," and we'll do the heavy lifting? Then in the spirit of "democracy" they can vote in (wink, wink) shariah law!
And just to second what a previous poster wrote, if some dictator in a crap-hole country abusing his people is all the reason we need to launch $1,500,000/pop Tomahawks in response, well, my question is are there enough frigging Tomahawks in the inventory to handle all of them? How come we ain't using Tomahawk Diplomacy on China? Or North Korea? Or Cuba? Venezuela? Pakistan? Syria? Sudan?
Serious question for you Guardiano---are you on some Saudi payroll? CAIR maybe? You have NO CLUE about islam and yet you spout off on it like the ME and North Africa are full of Mohammed Al-Jeffersons or something. Islam is INCOMPATABLE with a Constitutional Republican form of government our founders established. Period. End of sentence. A brief peek at a koran or hadith and you could figure that out. That you get on here week after week and spout this islamic nonsense (then just walk away from it when it goes bad, a la Egypt) makes me think you're already a fat and happy dhimmi taking money from some muslim front group to try and sway public opinion here in the States. That has GOT to be it.
Occam's Tool| 3.23.11 @ 3:04PM
The situation is simple: are the people who would take over going to be more favorable to the US? No? Then why intervene? Q is weak, predictable, and malleable. The Muslim Brotherhood is none of those things.
Why go into a situation where the Arab League backs you one day and stabs you in the back on day 2?
If Debbie Schlussel AND Ron Paul are in agreement on a foreign policy issue, listen up!