Thoughts on Libya

This came up in a conversation with a caller to the radio show last night.  I think it's slightly too devious overall, but  still worth considering.

Many people, including I, have said that it appears that Obama has further cemented his reputation as a non-leader by letting "the ladies" goad him into Libya involvement, letting the ladies deal with the UN and the Arab League, while Obama does his NCAA brackets, goes golfing for the 61st time in his presidency(!), and travels to Brazil.

I had thought that it was stupid of Obama politically to do yet another thing, especially on something as major as a war (even if a small, short war, which Obama claims this will be), which can be used to show him as feckless and spineless.

BUT...what if Obama has a secondary goal or at least an acceptable alternative outcome: If the war in Libya turns into a quagmire, a mess, or even a defeat, could he then lay all the blame at the feet of Hillary?  OK, not quite all since the buck does have to stop with him, but enough that he thinks he might basically slide even if the situation turns bad?  Is he preparing an "I told you so" defense?  Again, the fact that he is Commander in Chief would make that a somewhat hard sell, but one thing's for sure: Obama's letting Hillary take the lead on this means that if it goes badly, she's done. And if the Obamas dislike the Clintons as much as many early stories implied, Obama would probably not mind ridding himself of his most serious political challenger in recent years. 

Separately, is it not remarkable how he's using this opportunity to make US policy and perhaps even a level of control over our military subservient to international organizations including a bunch of tin pot Muslim dictators?  It's his latest step in weakening the nation and damaging its reputation, which he does at every possible step.

For more on Obama's damaging foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East, I recommend Jed Babbin's article for American Spectator today:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/21/obamas-unstable-middle-east

Also, for more on Obama's incredible hypocrisy, which his base and the media will never call him on, this accurate note by Jim Antle:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/21/obama-goes-to-war

  • kjdiamond
    Comment from: kjdiamond
    03/21/11 @ 10:10:12 am

    Whatever the motive behind supporting the opposition forces inLibya, if he thinks that waiting 3-4 weeks and hiding behind the dresses of the UN and Arab League (seriously...the fing Arab League) is a way to win the hearts of the voters, he is wrong. I doubt there is anything behind this beyond the fact that this man CANNOT make a decision. The President is supposed to be decisive and not test the international political winds before acting. This is just embarrasing plain and simple. There should have been no thought at all to providing cover to the rebels regardless of the outcome, i.e. another Islamist nation for Israel to deal with in the region. We should assist these countries in any way we can and at the same time throw our FULL support behind Israel to show everyone that you can have your government, but don't even try to induce war against Israel because it will be game over. I guess this is way beyond his pay grade. He is on vacation...voting present during his congressional years was enough warning of his ineptitude.

  • Ike
    Comment from: Ike
    03/21/11 @ 10:55:00 am

    I would agree, except for the recent rumblings that indicate Hillary is done. She recently went on the record that she's not interested in serving in his second administration, and is not gearing up to run herself. So why go to the trouble of dropping a land mine in her way, when she's walking the other direction?

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in now!