The “leader of the free world”—that’s what the office of the U.S. President was once popularly called. Remember Ronald Reagan standing up at the Brandenburg Gate, talking directly to the thugs over the wall. Remember the words on behalf of the free world: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
The title “leader of the free world” once had some meaning.
The bombing of Libya shows what that title is now worth. The foreign policy of the present incumbent is best described by the posture of of one of Britain’s most forgettable (and forgotten) Prime Ministers:
I must follow them.
I am their leader.
That’s the best comparison I can make of a foreign policy committed to following, in the words of President Obama, “the entire international community, almost unanimously”:
“Some sort of action.” “Core principle.” One could be forgiven for thinking that President Zero’s only “core principle” here is that when dragged kicking and screaming by the domestic press to confront an issue he resolves to take action. Some sort of action. Any action. Paraphrasing Sir Humphrey Appleby:
This is some action, therefore we must take it.
The no-fly zone itself being a “bob each way” kind of action that sees action being taken against dictator Qaddafi without actually taking any action against dictator Qaddafi. Talk about the politics of Alice in Wonderland. Says Michael Hurd about President Zero's "Pretend War":
The British Ministry of Defense, the French government and the American White House all insist: The target of the military attack on Libya is not Qaddafi; it's only military buildings.
So let me get this straight. We're attacking Libya because the dictator Qaddafi is oppressing his people -- yet we're not attempting to kill Qaddafi.
I guess this is how liberals fight wars. Just as you cannot call a terrorist a terrorist, you cannot call a war -- a war. This is noteworthy, but should not be a surprise. These are the same people who insist that socialized medicine lowers the cost and increases the quality of health care. These are the same people who believe that increased taxes on wealth producers generates economic growth.
My question is: Why are we attacking Libya, if not to punish Qaddafi? …
Obama, although he also opposes Qaddafi, goes after Qaddafi but expects us to believe ... he's not going after Qaddafi.
This is Obama’s “little war.” A pretend war. A war that’s neither one thing nor another. A war whose goal is the opposite of the little war’s stated intention. The result, other words, of the foreign policy of a Zero.
9 comments:
Some congressmen have expressed concern about Obama's non-communication to them over taking the country to war. Instead he listened to the UN without informing Congress. One congressman even said at the weekend that the president should be impeached for that because it is unconstitutional. I think I agree with that congressman.
I choke everytime he Obama talks about the Lybian peoples right to be free, while he is busy taking his own people's freedom away.
Obama said this to the Boston Globe in 2007: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." He should be impeached.
GWB also didn't call his wars "wars". The founders sought to prevent empire building by making warfare dependent upon the informed consent of citizens. They failed, so wars are "troop deployments", "targetted appropriations" and the like.
In what way does Libyan oppression qualify for armed intervention, while genocide in the Sudan goes almost unremarked?
So now when it's one of Obama's wars you all unveil a non-interventionist streak. How convinient.
Frankie Lee: It is not Obama's war, he has been soundly inert on all of this. It hasn't even been deliberate, it has been disinterest.
It was Sarkozy and Cameron who pushed for the no fly zone, with the added gem of being able to target any forces that threaten civilians. A wide definition of this will be applied.
He is AWOL, which must worry some of his allies, from Israel to South Korea.
KG: Sudan is under control, the Christian south is about to secede, legally. The question will be whether the Muslim majority will allow Southern Sudan to include the bulk of Sudan's oil wealth which is located there.
"KG: Sudan is under control.."
Misses the point, rather. The UN, EU and America sat on their hands for..how long?
Yet within a few days of unrest in Libya, the jets and cruise missiles are sent in to protect the rebels.
So my question remains.
The no-fly zone itself being a “bob each way” kind of action that sees action being taken against dictator Qaddafi without actually taking any action against dictator Qaddafi.
It does give cover to attacks that attempt to kill Qaddafi, which is obviously happening despite protestations to the contrary.
And that's taking action against him.
the No-PC blogspot on 22/3 had interesting comments "Better Late Than Never". About duplicitous Russians, Chinese and Arab League.
Peter
Post a Comment