What I Wish He Would Have Said

On Monday evening, President Obama spoke on the military action in Libya.  Contained in his speech are the markings of developing Obama Doctrine.  I wrote a post yesterday examining what that means. You can read it here. 

After sleeping on it, I think I have figured out what really bothered me about his speech.  It, of course, comes in the section where he outlines how he perceives American leadership.  He says,

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

  

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

I was on my best behavior as I wrote my analysis yesterday, but the honest truth is that I absolutely detest this last paragraph.  What enemy of the United States would read or hear those words and not feel emboldened; that their actions may go unpunished.

As I said, something about the wordplay bothered me.  Today, I figured out what it was.  I dislike his wording, because it contradicts the heart of a historic address by another President. 

I never want to be known for only criticizing and not offering a helpful suggestion.  So, with that in mind, I offer this; the section of another speech I wish he would have echoed.  (Feel free to yell out when you know who is speaking)

...the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

Those are the words of President John F. Kennedy at his inaugauration.  Read the whole speech here.

In his speech, he talked of the need to strengthen the UN, the need to negotiate with others and the need to always seek peace where possible.  But he made it clear to our Communist enemies where he stood.  We can fault some early missteps during his Presidency, but this speech was a highpoint.

I want our President to make it clear to the oppressors that they should no longer expect to have free reign to terrorize the citizens of the world.  That America will lead the charge toward a better world that will not abide the trampling of liberty in any its hidden corners.  We will always strive to lead the community of nations against tyranny in all its forms wherever they exist, but  America will never backdown from acting alone in the service of our own liberty and security.

That's what I wish he would have said.

Ruminations From the Void

Double standards - noun - any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another...

Hypocrisy - noun - the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour

Double standards exist when two groups are held to differing standards due to an inherent difference between the groups.  People often have different standards for men and women given the many differences between the groups.  It is somewhat less acceptable to regard groups of different ethnic or religious cultures differently, but it happens.  With the exception of a few fringe groups, the standards for humans and animals are wisely very different.

Hypocrisy on the other hand is when a person exhibits a standard for others and refuses to hold themselves to that same standard.

A double standard says "some for this one, but not for that one" and hypocrisy says "some for me, but none for thee".  Got it?  Of course there is always a situation where one simply has no guiding principles and improvises standards all willy-nilly. 

Beyond that, some use an immutable guiding principle for their words and actions.  See if you can spot which approach is being used in each story of today's Ruminations.  Don't be afraid to call me out too.

#1 - Here is President Obama in remarks made Friday, March 18th 2011,

Now, here's why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.  The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.  Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

And that's why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at he United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya and holding the Qadhafi regime accountable.

Our decisions have been driven by Qadhafi's refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.

In 2007, an interview with Senator Obama began with this lede,

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

In Obamaland, UN Security Council Authorizes Use of Amercian Troops

In 2002, Congress authorized military intervention in Iraq.  Because the UN was less supportive, Bush was derided for acting unilaterally.

In 2011, the UN authorized military intervention in Libya.  Even though Congressional approval was not sought or received, Obama is praised for acting multilaterally.

My conclusion - UN approval is more important than Congressional approval for a fairly large segment of the American population.

Yikes!!! 

I don't like double standards.  I try to avoid using them.  They serve no real purpose other than justifying incoherent judgements.  That said, I'm sure to be accused of using one when I say that President Obama's use of force in Libya is wrong while Bush's action in Iraq was right.  But don't judge me too soon, lest you look foolish.

I judge such matters by the level of agreement between the executive and the legislative branches.  I read the news and I try to stay informed.  But I'll never have as much information as our nation's elected leaders.  Asking me whether military action is justified in certain circumstances is like asking me to second guess Tony Larussa's use of the St. Louis Cardinal's pitching staff.  In one situation, it may be a no-brainer, but in another, only someone in Tony's position has all the information to make that call.

When the President sees the need to use military force, it is his duty to seek authorization from Congress to act.  Due to the modern nature of military activities, the authorization to use force has become the equivalent of a Declaration of War.  If the President and Congress then agree that military action is the correct move, then who am I to disagree?  If I do disagree, then I can seek to change that in the voting booth.

Occasionally, action must immediately be taken in our nation's defense.  Under such circumstances, I want the President to act first, then seek to justify his actions before Congress as soon as possible and seek authorization for any continuation of military operations.

Bush's action was not correct because I agreed with him.  It was correct because Congress agreed with him.  Obama's is wrong for the same reason.  Congress could have debated and voted on an authorization in less time than it took to pass a resolution at the UN.  Obama has offered no excuse for bypassing Congress.

It's not as if timeliness was an issue.  He supposedly changed his mind on the use of force sometime Tuesday, but no action took place before Friday.  Congress declared War on Japan and Germany in less time after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What is worse is that even if timeliness was an issue prior to the use of force, it is not delaying him from seeking a declaration now.  But is he doing that?  No, he left town for South America.  That is wrong and unconstitutional.

Whether he feels that Congress would support action or not, he must seek its approval.  Because he has not sought such, it can only be assumed that Obama considers that the UN resolution is an adequate authorization for military action.  Congress cannot let such a precedent stand.

Our military intervention in Libya may be the correct action for the US.  But then again, it may not.  Obama has decided it is.  Now that he has put the military in harm's way, he has my support; but not my faith.  He'll have that when he seeks and receives an authorization for his actions; not from other nation's leaders, but from our nation's leaders.

It's time for Congress to reassert its authority by debating and voting on this military action.  To allow the President to supplant Congressional authority with the UN Security Council's would set us on a course that may soon jeopardize our sovereignty.

Walk Softly and Carry a Moderately Sized Stick

Whether accurate or not, President Obama appears clueless.

Understand, even when I don’t agree with someone, I always try to see the other guy’s view.   I have no fear of having a calm rational discussion with people.  I’m not reactionary as a rule.  I always feel comfortable praising or complaining about the actions of politicians regardless of the R or D in front of their name.

I disagreed with Rush Limbaugh after Obama was elected.  I didn’t want to see the President fail, no matter his policies.  I opposed him because I felt his policies had no chance of succeeding, not because I didn’t like them.  I wouldn’t complain if it turned out I was wrong.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t.

I have to say that I offered praise for his refusal to scrap Bush’s defense measures that have continued to protect us from terrorism.  While I disagree with some changes he has made in that area, I can see his reason for doing so.

But right now, I just don’t see what he is seeing.  I can’t grasp what is going through his mind.

When the people of Iran rose up in protest, Obama was silent for days before offering a tepid, “we are witnesses” line.  We did nothing to support or protect the brave Iranians.

A year later, when northern Africa was struck with a wave of uprisings, Obama was slow to respond.  Once he did, he never seemed to know what he was saying.  Neither did those who worked for him.  From day to day, his stance seemed to shift so much that I’m still not sure where he stood.

On Libya, the President seemed wholly incapable of forming any type of coherant policy.  I wasn't the only one to notice. [h/t Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy]

Clinton stayed out of the fray, repeating the administration's position that all options are on the table but not specifically endorsing any particular step. She also did not voice support for stronger action in the near term, such as a no-fly zone or military aid to the rebels, both diplomats said.

"The way the U.S. acted was to let the Germans and the Russians block everything, which announced for us an alignment with the Germans as far as we are concerned," one of the diplomats told The Cable.

Clinton's unwillingness to commit the United States to a specific position led many in the room to wonder exactly where the administration stood on the situation in Libya.

"Frankly we are just completely puzzled," the diplomat said. "We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States."

Eventually, Secretary Clinton along with France and the Arab League drug Obama into taking a solid stance on Libya this past week.

Contrary to what Obama’s team has said, UN Resolution 1973 creates a marathon rather than a sprint.  Over a decade after the first Gulf War, US and UK planes were still enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq.  A no-fly zone is an efficient way to achieve a forced peace with a limited military engagement.  But it is not a quick and temporary job.

Reports from administration officials say that they expect these actions to last days, not weeks, but Obama contradicts them in his statement,  

So we must be clear:  Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced.  That is the cause of this coalition. 

     As a part of this effort, the United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.  And as I said yesterday, we will not — I repeat — we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.

An effort that has a “front end” can probably be expected to last more than a few days.

The problem is that the resolution has no teeth to coerce Gaddafi; the limited military action offers no real threat to him.  He can play a game of cat and mouse in an effort to test our stamina.  He will pull out Saddam Hussein’s playbook in dealing with the sanctions.  Until there is a deadline with deadly consequences, the Libyan dictator is free to play the game for all it’s worth.

The no-fly zone is fine for what it is – an open-ended commitment to protect citizens.  But in Libya, a country undergoing an open rebellion, when does the no-fly zone cease to be a defensive effort and become an offensive weapon for the rebels?  Are we then putting our military personnel in harm’s way - not to protect innocent civilians, but to aid a revolution?   I’m not stating opposition to that, but shouldn’t all of this be discussed in Congress?

[Remember when the President would seek and receive authorization for war from Congress and it was called acting unilaterally because the French didn’t agree?  Now the President acts independent of any authorization from Congress and it’s called a multilateral action because the French are on board.

Oh, the bitter sweet irony]

If Obama believes this will only last a matter of days, not weeks, he is either misguided or seeks to give the rebels cover to swiftly overthrow Gaddafi.  But if he really meant to give aid to the rebellion, then we waited too long to act.  When the opposition troops were on the outskirts of Tripoli, a no-fly zone may have paved the way to a succesful regime change.  Instead we waited until Gaddafi's troops had pushed them back to Benghazi.

It’s getting more and more difficult to see any method to the madness of Obama’s diplomacy.  In announcing his decision to support military intervention by the UN, his administration took pains to explain his change of position carefully.  Instead they exposed his naivety.  Here’s Ace at Ace of Spades HQ,

Oh, dear God. Our President -- leader of the free world, commander in chief of the armed forces -- really thought that sanctions and a vague threat of force (while appearing very disinclined to carry out that threat) would be enough to convince a dictator to voluntarily relinquish power.

And that is the story they want out there.

The other story is that Obama just kind of doesn't make decisions for weeks at a time and then flip-flops his way into half-a**ed ones.

I want very much, to be able to support my President.  But the guy has to be smarter than this.  Teddy Roosevelt said to speak softly but carry a big stick.  For weeks, Obama talked loudly, then was surprised that his talking didn’t get the needed result.  So now he brings out a little stick.  In his announcement, he states that ground troops will not be deployed.  His attempt to stave off any concern about the use of ground troops seems to support the notion that the little stick may be inadequate for the task.  If so, what do we do then?

When we gradually increase the size of our stick, it fails to serve its purpose.  The reason we carry a big stick is for its intimidation factor - not because we want to use it.  Too often, liberals fail to comprehend this basic strategy.  When we show the big stick, it eliminates a lot of the need to use it.

Time and again, we see Democrats who want to use an escalating scale of military intervention with no clearly defined goals.  If you want to know why Vietnam became Vietnam, the answer is “an escalating scale of military intervention with no clearly defined goals”.  In Vietnam (Kennedy & Johnson), Iran (Carter), Kosovo & Somalia (Clinton) and now Libya (Obama), Democrat Presidents all wanted to tiptoe into military intervention.  They act as if Roosevelt had said, "Walk softly" instead of "Talk softly".

Agree with him or not, but once Bush felt that action was needed in Iraq, he followed the proper playbook.  He made the case in Washington and Europe.  He used UN resolutions to give Iraq’s dictator a deadline to meet certain requirements and laid out the consequences for any failure to do so.  With Congressional backing, Bush used the big stick in an attempt to intimidate Saddam into compliance.  When that failed, he swung the big stick.

Despite his failure to move Saddam to act, Bush’s big stick did move Libya’s dictator to voluntarily end his weapon’s programs for fear of the same fate.  This, of course, is the same man who now thumbs his nose at Obama’s little stick.

President Obama has said several times that Gaddafi must go.  But it must be decided whether we have a vested national security interest in that and that discussion should take place in Congress.  If we do, then Obama needs to bring out the big stick, give Gaddafi an exit plan and a deadline, and then enforce that deadline.

Mr. President, just as Gaddafi once paid attention to the actions of George W. Bush, the leaders of Iran, Syria and other nations are watching your actions today.  You can talk to them all you want; and when you do, follow this little piece of advice - say what you mean and mean what you say.  But I can promise you that they hear what you have to say much more clearly when they see you holding a big stick across your shoulder.