The Where’s Waldo President Does Libya

There is a good argument to be made against U.S. intervention in Libya. George Will has made it. There is a good argument to be made for intervention. Leon Wieseltier has made it in the New Republic. I am ashamed to confess that I am not sure what I would do if I had to make the call. Fortunately, I don't.

Unfortunately Barack Obama does and he ain't. If we have learned nothing else about the Obama Administration, it is that it has no center. If you don't believe me, ask the New York Times for heaven's sake!

The Obama administration is throwing out so many conflicting messages on Libya that they are blunting any potential pressure on the Libyan regime and weakening American credibility. It's dangerous to make threats if you're not prepared to follow through. All of the public hand-wringing has made it even worse.

Yes. On any one day the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President are talking at odds with one another. Worse, the Administration's policy, if one can call it that, is clearly at odds with itself. From the Washington Post:

"WE HAVE ALREADY engineered the most rapid and forceful set of sanctions that have ever been applied internationally," President Obama boasted last week in one of his rare public statements about Libya…

It's beginning to look as if what Mr. Obama has "engineered" is a situation in which the United States and its closest allies have declared that a dictator must go "as quickly as possible" - and have not only constrained themselves from ensuring that outcome but are actively hindering it by refusing to provide arms to the opposition. So far the United States has not even recognized the opposition administration set up in Benghazi - even though the White House has said repeatedly that Mr. Gaddafi's regime is no longer legitimate.

Mr. Obama, who skipped a meeting of his top aides on Libya Wednesday, may hope that the Libyan rebels will defeat the Gaddafi forces without outside help - or that other Western governments will provide the leadership that he is shunning.

Well, one can always hope. Hope is easy, whereas decision and action are, for this President at least, impossible. Ruth Marcus calls his Administration the "where's Waldo presidency."

For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action - unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.

Yes. The President has no policy to address the fiscal crisis facing America. He has no policy on entitlement reform. He has nothing resembling a coherent energy policy. These things will matter a lot in the future. Right now people are dying in Libya. Our President has simultaneously encouraged them to fight, declared that Qaddafi must go, and effectively ensured that Qaddafi can do whatever he needs to do to keep power. The vacuous executive radiates out through his administration to the world community. The French have tried to provide leadership, but when the President of the United States is MIA, that is hopeless.

To say that this is a "where's Waldo Presidency" is unfair to Waldo. Waldo was always somewhere in the picture.

Comments

[BillW]

Where;s Waldo? Waldo is wonking, instead of making decisions because that is all Waldo knows.

Senators, as a rule, along with community activists, and academics - which pretty well sums up the collective resumes of the current administration, have never had to make decisions. They understand everything from Libya to economics to the environment in theoretical terms.

Governors, former military people, and folks with business backgrounds make for better Presidents because they have gotten used to making decisions in the face of reality and uncertainty ... where all of the data is not known. They may not always make good decisions, but they tend to understand that not making a decison is actually a decision to do nothing, which rarely turns out well.

Wonkers like Obama are paralyzed whenever things happen that are not part of their operating theories ... which occurs pretty frequently. The world is, unfortunately, a messy, complicated place. Whoodda thunk the Egyptian and Libyan people would rise up out of the blue and overthrow the government? With no operating theory to prepare them, the wonks retreat to the backrooms and start wonking - discussing and debating grand theories in an effort to figure out a new theory to define the situation and determine the appropriate response. Only it's pretty hard to do because, unlike their academic world, things keep changing, and there is a lot that is unknown.

The media gave him a free pass, but the Wonker in Chief was similarly paralyzed when the BP rig blew up in the Gulf. Waldo did nothing for days while they wonked environmental and economic theory, leavened with a goodly dose of political theory.

They are wonking on Libya and wonking on Iran, wonking on Egypt and wonking on Gitmo and terrorism, wonking on oil and gas prices and wonking on the unemployment rate. Don't look for Waldo to do anything decisive real soon.

[George Mason]

The man whose legislative resume consists of voting "present" isn't even showing up to vote here. "All options are on the table" he says, and on the table they will stay. Obama will not move until someone else takes him by the hand. France and Italy have indicated they are ready to move if the U.S. will lead but we are leaderless. Obama will incite people to vandalism and violence in Wisconsin, but when it comes to Libya he goes golfing.

[Miranda]

I can understand Obama's position to some degree. Bush was often attacked for his policy on Iraq because many believed we had no business there - unless Iraq had WMDs. Libya, as far as I know, doesn't have WMDs. Therefore (if we use the same reasoning) we have no business intervening there.

For Bush, fostering democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan was a priority. But the left has argued that neither attempt has worked particularly well and even if they had, many questioned our right to try to install democracies in the two nations.

Obama was elected partially because many wanted our troops out of both areas as soon as possible. So how can a man who has been elected to take us out of war begin sending troops into other nations? On the other hand, if Obama doesn't condemn Libya, there's more fuel for "Obama hates democracy" argument. So he has to at least LOOK like he cares about democracy in Libya. Hence the words of condemnation.

The result of all of this may be disasterous. Libyans may be killed because of their desire for democracy, but at least the worst thing of all hasn't happened! Obama has not become Bush.

[larry kurtz]

So, deploying all US troops and Guard leaves the population sorely ill-equipped to handle a Japan-like event, innit?

[larry kurtz]

just nuke the bastards...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR_5WcCIAHY

[unicorn4711]

What about that intervening is probably illegal under the international law standards we helped create after WW2 by taking the read role in developing the UN? Even in Iraq, the US has at least made an effort to be consistent with international law and obtain a security council resolution.

Doing so is really important because any creation of a No Fly Zone effectively means taking sides in a purely internal foreign civil war, instigating a bombing campaign (to destroy anti-aircraft and radar) and then patrolling the skies for weeks on end. I've never heard of a bombing campaign that didn't have at least one accidental civilian death. And, knowing how heartless dictators work, the legitimate targets are probably amongst the residential areas, hospitals, and school yards.

As soon as the first school is bombed or hospital destroyed, many of the loudest supporters of intervention are going to change their minds and call any US effort another ploy to steal Arab oil or wage war on Muslims. The twisted minds of Al-Qaeda will find some way to twist an intervention for purely humanitarian reasons as one more piece of so-called evidence as to why the US and the West must be destroyed. The US is going to to want the ability to remind the world that the US's actions were completely legitimate under international law.

Under the Charter Article 2 (4) and (7), intervening in the internal matters of another state is illegal unless doing so is expressly authorized by the Security Council. Articles 39 through 42 state that the Security Council has authority to determine what measures can be used to restore international peace. Article 51 tells us that countries still have a right to self-defence.

Under the most narrow interpretations, that's the law. No other military intervention is legal. If and when things go wrong, I think it makes good sense to be "legal" even under the most narrow interpretations.

Under the Blair-Clinton "humanitarian intervention" interpretation, intervention in a purely internal matter without a UN Security Council resolution is justified when doing so is necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis (Kosovo).

In Iraq, W. Bush and Blair did go to the UN. They argued for a new resolution authorizing action against the regime for failure to comply with weapons inspections. When they didn't get a new, express resolution from the SC, they argued a previous resolution, 1441. 1441 issued a final opportunity for Iraq to comply with the disbarment obligations.

The US and UK argued that non-cooperation with weapons inspective constituted another material breach under 1441 and reauthorized action, even without a separate, new Security Council resolution.

In the alternative, the US and UK argued that Iraq posed such a grave threat that intervention was necessary as self-defence.

Regardless of your views on the second Iraq War, the US went through great lengths to stay within the current system.

I hope Obama sticks to a narrower interpretation. If doing so leads to a situation where a humanitarian crisis ensues, then Obama should acknowledge that US intervention is considered by some to be illegal under the UN Charter, intervene with all necessary force, and then argue that the charter should be modified or interpreted to allow for purely internal humanitarian crisis to be stopped.

[Ken Blanchard]

Unicorn: I think you illustrate nicely the limits of international law. If "we" want to intervene badly enough, we will always find reasons. Here I make no case either way. I just think that the administration should make up its mind. Apparently, it is incapable of doing so.

[Donald Pay]

For eight years we had Dumbo as President, whose thought process was aptly summarized in his statement, "I am the decider." Just about everything this man decided turned to a pile of pooh.

You might not like Obama's thoughtful style of leadership, who thinks before he acts. But thank God we don't have the geriatric warmonger as President. He never met a situation that dropping some bombs and killing American soldiers couldn't make worse. The fact is Obama has far more coherent policies than any Republicans or neocon has had for decades.

I gotta laugh at the statement that the French are providing leadership. Well, fine, when the French decide to initiate a no-fly-zone, America can support them.

[BillW]

Donald,

Dumbo? ... geriatric warmonger? ... your pathetic attempts at intelletual discussion are an embarrassment to Democrats. Larry is wrong just about all the time, but at least he is creative.

You praise Obama with platitudes like "The fact is Obama has far more coherent policies than any Republicans or neocon has had for decades." yet you offer absolutely nothing to back them up.

If you honestly believe the world, the US and the Iraqi people are not substantially better off now than they were under Sadam Hussein then you are beyond hope.

[larry kurtz]

Ellsworth has the technology to do it with just the push the button and have enough time to go to the Clock Tower Bar for a pitcher of Margaritas: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/new-icbms-vs-terrorists-plan-now-50-less-crazy

Is this a great country or what?

[lynn]

Waldo was once again golfing this weekend too in the midst of the Japan crisis and what that means for the rest of the world. Waldo had no executive experience before getting elected. His leadership experience consisted of community organizing. He didn't lead anything in his brief senatorial jobs; in fact he spend most of his time in the us Senate running for President. He was elected mainly by those who wanted more of his stash, those who saw in him a puppet to control for their own desires, those who believed in his "hope and change" mantra, and those who simply voted for him because he was Black. BTW I would vote for a Black like Alan West for President anyday, so don't say I'm racist; I'm not. The fact is we have a very inexperienced man in the oval office today, and it shows.

[KB]

Donald: Dumbo at least was able to generate policies. Waldo apparently cannot. What does it mean that, more than two years into the Obama Administration, you are still defending him by talking about George W. Bush?

[Miranda]

Donald: There is, I think, a difference between thoughtful hesitation and
inaction. Had Obama not already announced that Gadhafi "must go" we might be able to conclude that he was merely thinking through the situation.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. The President did not lose much time in announcing that Gaddafi should go - but he does not seem to have taken any time to decide how that should happen.

At least the decider could decide.

[Dave]

You might be a tea "partier" if...

4) You were all in favor of George Bush bringing “Democracy” to Iraq by invading and killing hundreds of thousands of women and children, but you think Obama “blew it” by staying out of it when the people of Tunisia and Egypt toppled their dictators in popular revolts.

The US might actually gain favor in the Arab states if we let them settle things themselves...

But that's not what we're all about, is it? 'We' are more interested in criticizing the democrat party than finding solutions to problems, aren't 'we?'

[BillW]

Dave,

You wrote: "George Bush bringing “Democracy” to Iraq by invading and killing hundreds of thousands of women and children."

Why is the word Democracy in quotes? Are you suggesting that there is not a democracy in Iraq?

How many women and children were killed in Iraq by US forces in the invasion? What is your source for asserting that the United States killed hundreds of thousands of women and children? Are you blaming George Bush for an Al Qaeda bomber blowing up a Sunni marketplace and killing the women and children there?

How many Kurdish, Sheite, Irani, Saudi and Kuwaiti women and children were killed by Sadam Hussein?

Have you ever actually talked to an Iraqi or anyone who has been spent any significant time there?

Do you really know anything about the subject?

[Miranda]

And of course winning favor with Arab states trumps democracy!

[BillW]

Good point Miranda. Apparently "winning favor" is the goal of Obama foreign policy, as opposed to protecting American interests or advancing the cause of freedom. OK for people to live under oppressive dictators so long as the dictator like us.

[BillW]

Saddest part of the liberal blather on the blog is the degree to which they take freedom for granted. They have done nothing to earn it for themselves or others, and therefore cannot appreciate its value - no recognition whatsoever of how precious freedom is and how deeply the Iraqi people and millions of others living in freedom thanks to US sacrifice of blood and treasure appreciate our efforts.

Notice that few if any American soldiers join in the liberal chorus blaming America for every ill around the globe. The soldiers are the ones who paid the price, and have also seen first hand the benefits in the lives of the people who have been brought out from under dictatorship to a life of freedom.

Few Iraqi people criticize our actions in Iraq – criticism of America’s liberation of Iraq comes solely from terrorists and American liberals.

As I heard one soldier say, the critics of America’s efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere around the globe are the ones who spend their day scorning America, all the while wrapped warmly in the blanket of freedom those they criticize have sacrificed to provide them. They have given nothing of themselves for the cause of freedom, appreciate nothing, and are the loudest critics of those who have sacrificed much.

[Ken Blanchard]

Dave & Donald:

I doubt very much whether the Arabs respect indecisiveness anymore than anyone else does. In fact, I am quite sure the opposite is true. I do not criticize the President for not intervening in Libya. I criticize him for the same reason that the Washington Post and the New York Times and the New Republic do: he said that Qaddafi had to go and then did nothing to back up his words. That ensures that no one will take the U.S. seriously and makes the President look like a damn fool. It is certainly not a case of "thinking before acting."

Throughout the unrest in the Middle East the President has only reacted, changing his story by the day.

[BillW]

The American liberal …

Stands shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas in criticizing Israel and justifying launching rockets at unarmed civilians in Israel

Joins Al Qaeda as the most vocal critics of the US liberation of Iraq

Joins the international terrorist community in assailing treatment of terrorists as military prisoners – demanding that they be tried in criminal courts and afforded US Constitutional rights

Opposes taking military action against Muammar Gaddafi, the close friend and ardent supporter of Idi Amin, architect of the Lockerbie bombing, and provider of terrorist training, weapons and financial support for every group from Al Qaeda to the IRA

While standing in common cause and sympathy with every notorious terrorist group in the world, the liberal has the gall to criticize George Bush for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis at the hands of militant Muslim terrorist suicide bombers.

Leads you to wonder just whose side they are on

[larry kurtz]

Zionism=Beck

[Jimi]

Larry Kurtz a.k.a. "Poopy Brains"

[Dave]

BillW,

Your vacuous knowledge of both current affairs in the the Middle East, and what liberals believe is truly incredible. But not surprising given the BS that passes for news these days.

[Dave]

The US president has told Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that terms laid out in the UN Security Council resolution seeking to impose a no-fly zone over his country are not negotiable.

In a televised statement from Washington on Friday, Barack Obama said Gaddafi had the "choice" to declare a ceasefire or face "consequences".

"Let me be clear: These terms [in the resolution] are not negotiable," said Obama.

"These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Gaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. The resolution will be enforced through military action."

Yep, that's waffley all right...

[Ken Blanchard]

Sure, Dave. After Europe took leadership and pushed the 'No fly Zone' through the security council, Obama suddenly talks tough. Does he mean it? No one but you believes that his words mean anything.