Thomas Sowell has written a brilliant essay on this subject. While I usually agree with everything Sowell has to say, I somehow feel as though he did not go far enough with this piece. It is not his fault, how could he and at the same time keep withing the confines of normal editorial rules. President Obama’s foray into his usage of military force will be the subject of historical ridicule for centuries to come. Last week I wrote about Andrea Mitchell’s valiant and yet idiotic attempt to define the Obama Doctrine. As painful as it was to read, even the President felt the need to set the record straight. On Monday evening, President Obama and his teleprompter took to the broadcast airwaves to make his case to the American People. His speech took 27 minutes. After that 27 minute speech, I am left with this. The Obama doctrine is bereft of any actual core belief system, value, principle, or policy direction. It is made up entirely of blind political ambition coupled with a dangerous combination of unbridled arrogance and a singularly clueless ineptitude. I believe a new word is in order, we’ll call it, “Blind Ambeptogance.”
Where to begin with this strategy that irresponsibly places American lives in danger. After days of several Administration officials taking to the airwaves to discuss why we are doing this, I am left wondering if any of them even know each other. Has any one else noticed that no two Executive Branch leaders has given the same statement of concise policy, nor a reason why the necessary consultation with Congress did not occur. After listening to the President’s speech, I have an idea why. Obama himself was self contradictory in when it would be appropriate to go to war. His reasons for when military force were appropriate beyond being sophomoric can be summed up as thus, “When I feel like it.” This places the United States in a dangerous position. We have now become the tool of the League of Arab Nations, and of the U.N. Farming our National interests out to foreign powers, and placing our foreign policy for approval by unfriendly dictatorships is much better reason to impeach a president than the spectre of lying about perverse sexual acts with a clueless First Lady in an adjoining room. All throughout 2008 I implored my liberal friends to reconsider voting for candidate who would do this very thing. They all assured me that I was crazy, that Candidate Obama would never co opt our national interests to the U.N. On Monday night, in his own words, he made this the cornerstone of his foreign policy decision making process. I am not surprised at this statement. What does surprise me though is that the spin doctors are still giving a valiant effort to convince me that this is smart diplomacy at work.
Since Barak Obama got elected largely on his criticism of Bush’s use of military force, let’s compare the two Presidents, shall we. Bush got Congressional approval each and every time he authorized use of the military. Obama did not. Bush spent 9 months building his coalition for, and his case in support of his use of force in Iraq. Obama spent zero time in gaining support for his war in Libya, while he claims that he did not need to build a coalition in this war, that we joined one in progress, it is a much more limited coalition than the one built by Bush for both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Coalition Countries – Iraq – 2003
United StatesAfghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition – Libya – 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Bush had a clearly defined mission, with a clear definition of what victory looked like. Obama’s mission direction is still being interpreted by a group of highly trained linguists who quite frankly are going insane from the challenge of the language of despotic empty suited teleprompters. Bush applied his doctrine consistently, whether you agree with that doctrine or not. Obama’s doctrine can not possibly be applied evenly, as it is entirely left to his whim at any given time. That statement right there should preclude him from holding any office with any kind of authority, let alone President of the United States.
Enjoy Bill Whttle’s dissection of the dizzying argument for a war, which quite frankly, if we win, we lose.
