|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 7, 2011 © Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project – May be used freely with
proper attribution. All other rights
reserved. |
|
The
Sum of America’s Libya Policy
President
Obama’s Elegant Speech Indicated Stalemate OK for Now
On
3/28 we posted in reaction to Obama’s speech: “Masterful, nuanced, intelligent articulation of Libya policy by president
will enhance stature, mute critics. He
is okay w/temp stalemate.”
On 3/29 we posted “NPR
‘All Things Considered,’ today, in piece on Libya speech: ‘The president's
speech appears to have muted some of the criticism...’”
We
now follow up those blurbs with this brief.
On
March 28, the president laid out one of the most thoughtful, elegant, and
coherent explanations of the American national interest and moral obligation in
regards to the actions of tyrants beyond our borders ever delivered by any
president anywhere. We invite those who missed it to see it or to read it. It aspired to
the moral, visionary, intellectual, muscular liberalism of the Kennedy
era. It flatly rejected the narrow, parochial, inward-looking
isolationism of the far right and extreme libertarians, and the small-minded,
disingenuous, utopian pacifism of the far left. While the second President
George Bush belatedly adopted a conservative version of this view after 9/11,
in the address, Barak Obama articulated an understanding of an idealistic
American foreign policy, tempered by practicality, in a way Bush II never could
– to the detriment of Bush and American foreign policy. Barak Obama
answered every question that has been raised in the public debate since the
question of American involvement first surfaced. And, though we do not
agree here with the specifics of the president’s tactical requirement of a
broad-based, multi-national consensus, he did lay out a very compelling
argument for it.
In
truth, there is wisdom in the general concept of gaining a broad-based
international coalition in these kinds of engagements. But, we point to the
example of George Bush I in the first Iraq war, as a better formula, one with a
clearer path to success, and one that maintains the precious and often
cost-saving currency of American prestige. As an editorial in the Wall
Street Journal put it prior to the president’s speech, when listing legitimate
American interests, “…and, do we have to say it? American
prestige.” Unfortunately, we do have to say it, because while most
Americans seem to understand the high value of prestige in commerce,
professional associations, and even social settings, many do not understand its
value in international affairs. And, we do still wonder if the president,
as one highly committed to a leftist-liberal ideology that is prone to question
American purpose and values, understands its value. President Carter
never understood it while in office, and does not to this day.
In
any case, when we said “He is okay w/temp
stalemate,” we were indicating precisely that: that the president has taken a
course that will prolong the resolution of the conflict in Libya, and with open
eyes is accepting that, preferring it to taking any of the actions that would
be required to obtain anything more than that quickly. His multi-national
consensus requirement effectively prevents him from taking any course that
would speed up the resolution, and he knows that.
The president has shown
himself to be a thinker. But, the opportunity for a relatively
easy intervention, one that would have accomplished the humanitarian goals most
sane humans agree with, as well as major strategic gains for the United States
- with very little to be placed at risk - was lost. The president has
thoughtfully reversed himself in many areas regarding national security (with
the quiet, hypocritical - if reluctant - acquiescence of The New York Times
and NBC), but slowly. In a moment of real national crisis, this penchant
for taking his time may prove to be a serious liability for the nation.
