Obama's Self-Defeat
Obama's speech did nothing to show that the United States has not doomed its Libyan adventure to failure. Instead, as I argue (along with my Justice Department colleague Robert Delahunty) in today's Foreign Policy magazine, Obama's desire for U.N. cover for the Libyan intervention prevents the United States from overthrowing Qaddafi. As we argue:
Worst of all, perhaps, has been Obama's determination to ensure the United Nations has played a leading role in the Libya intervention. As a result of an embarrassing, last-minute policy switch on the administration's part, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 -- which authorizes the use of "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan "civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack." Although lauded as a diplomatic victory for the administration, the resolution's main effect is to straitjacket U.S. military and policy choices. By its own terms, the resolution does not authorize the coalition to bring Qaddafi down. Yet that is precisely the proclaimed policy objective of the United States, Britain, and France. For the sake of obtaining the Security Council's approval, the Obama administration has denied itself and its coalition partners the full use of the military instrument to achieve its core policy goal.
I think the solution is a Concert of Democracies, which of course needs more thought to become a replacement to the U.N. A Concert of Europe managed European security after the defeat of Napoleon (though in defense of monarchies, not democracies), and a similarly informal means of cooperation could provide a far more effective means today, but on a global scale, of maintaining international stability.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Obama has his ace in the hole. The fawning media is going to pull out all the stops to paint whatever the outcome in Libya as an Obama victory of the greatest magnitude. They’re pining for it. Obama has already given them their mantra when he claimed we had been in Iraq 8 years to achieve little. The media will latch onto that and compare it to Obama’s Libyan adventure to claim that, unlike Bush, he achieved total victory in just a few weeks with virtually no loss of American lives. There will be a ticker tape parade.
Ordinary working people who have responsibilities to attend to and can’t study this stuff will fall for it. They need some good news and this will give it to them.
Feb '11
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
TeeJaw, if we do manage to achieve victory (i.e. removal Qaddafi) "in just a few weeks with virtually no loss of American lives" are you saying that we shouldn't be happy about that? Granted, he's taking a huge gamble since that type of victory is nowhere near certain, and also granted that it's utterly annoying and probably disingenuous of the President to continue taking potshots at President Bush. But I don't see why we should be displeased if that particular outcome is achieved. Good on the President for taking the opportunity for such a victory, despite his many failings.
Feb '11
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
John, I really don't think we need anything as formal as the informal Concert of Democracies you suggest. No capital letters are required; President Bush already demonstrated how such an arrangement works when he put together his coalitions.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
"They’re pining for it. Obama has already given them their mantra when he claimed we had been in Iraq 8 years to achieve little." -- I found President Obama's comments regarding Iraq as self serving and a poor attempt to remind everyone I'm-not-like-Bush.
Today we hear of news that the rebels (who by the way we've not yet been given a clear picture as to the makeup of these individuals) have been pushed back again. So much for the clear cut easy out Obama was looking for. Another question left unanswered. What happens when / if the rebels capture Ghaddafi's home town and engage in a little pay-back themselves by wiping out the civilian population? What happens if a NATO jet gets shot out of the sky and the crew lands on the wrong side of the lines? This whole operation is half-baked and appears to be running more on luck and guess work than on serious forethought.
Jan '11
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
I agree with Johannes, and the notion of a payback against Qaddafi's hometown is a possibility that I hadn't considered - and scares the hell out of me. This humanitarian mission would turn morally disastrous in a hurry.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Just watched a CNN link from "Hot Air" Apparently, they've switched aircraft from F-15's and F-16's to A-10's that fly low and slow to support troops. Of course these missions are riskier and I'm sensing mission creep.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/30/cnn-us-changing-war-strategy-to-all-out-attack-on-gaddafi-forces/
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
As Alexander Hamilton explains in The Federalist, one of the chief reasons to have a unitary executive is so that he can act with vigor, secrecy, and dispatch. We now have a President who exhibits not one of these three qualities. Instead of acting with dispatch, he dithers. Instead of acting with vigor, he ties us up in knots. And instead of acting with secrecy, he goes to the UN. When the revolt first broke out and swept through Libya, we could easily have guaranteed Gaddafi's fall -- simply by announcing that we would shoot down aircraft and take out any tanks he sent against the opposition. The clans supporting him would quickly have switched sides. As things stand, it is going to be a godawful mess, and there is no way that the media can protect him from getting the blame. He not only did not consult Congress; he barely took the trouble to inform it of what he was doing.
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 4:24pmSep '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Conservatives should squash Responsibility to Protect like a bug.
Jul '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
The enemy of my enemy is sometimes my enemy, too.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Yup. Sometimes, the enemy of my controllable/manageable enemy is my uncontrollable/unmanageable enemy.
Feb '11
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
I don't understand why you think a "Concert of Democracies" would not wind up as shrill a cacophony as the United Nations? Do you honestly think democracies have no sharper divergence of interests than exists in the United Nations? There certainly was a divergence of interests among the European monarchies that wound up in war -- e.g., Crimean War. So your panacea will likely be anything but. I don't have a better solution. I just don't believe in solutions.
May '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
A strong, unitary executive was desired by Hamilton because it was instrumental in pursuing his own ends and I've offered a personal estimate of his political schemes before. Hamilton:
-supported the distribution of "pecuniary bounties" to businesses (18th century parlance for corporate welfare)
-argued in Federalist No. 23 that the power "to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; [and] to provide for their support...ought to exist without limitation..."
-supported a tax on whiskey and when the Whiskey Rebellion manifested as a result organized an army to put down the rebellion and ensure that the tax was collected
-endorsed the profligate issuance of government bonds
-supported numerous tariffs and excise taxes, a carriage tax, and a national property tax which provoked a rebellion in Pennsylvania called the "Fries Rebellion"
(Cont.)
May '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
-succeeded in getting the federal government to nationalize the war debt of the states. Citizens of states such as Virginia that already fulfilled their state's war debt obligations were forced to help pay for the war debt obligations of states like Massachusetts whose citizens had not yet discharged their war debt.
-argued in favor of a central bank, the Bank of the United States, in his Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States by claiming that the "implied powers" expressed by the Constitution enabled the federal government to charter a national government bank
It appears to me that Hamilton's theorizing was intended merely to expand the authority of the government, enabling it to conduct itself in ways that burden taxpayers today. A strong unitary executive would have increased the ease with which Hamilton fulfilled his political aims. It seems to me that one of the great achievements of the Founders was the decentralization of political power accomplished by instituting checks/balances and separating the creation, enforcement, and interpretation of laws. The history I'm familiar with suggests that an inverse relationship exists between the decentralization of political power and governmental abuse.
Aug '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
The better quote is, 'The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less - maxim 29' - Schlock Mercenary
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
It is a virtual certainty the UN will never approve a resolution supporting regime change, much less one that calls for doing it by military means or one that supports an insurgency.
Obama, Hillary, and Rice had to know this before initiating this mess.
The closest the UN came was with Saddam the second time around. Yet even after all Saddam did, after his defiance of more than a dozen UN resolutions over more than a decade, it still couldn't do it. When the goal is regime change nothing is gained by getting the UN involved.
Their hopes and plans for toppling Gaddafi without going beyond the UN resolution is a gamble based on overly optimistic pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 12:02pmDec '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Of the points you selected, only the second (Federalist 23) deals with the military. In looking at Federalist 23, I read that Hamilton is referring to the government at large, not the executive. What's your problem with this?
It's my understanding that Hamilton and others did not want the United States to be at a disadvantage when dealing with monarchs. So, while Hamilton supported executive powers that could be called unitary only for dealing with the rest of the world on a military footing, he supported a shared authority in internal and other external matters.
I suspect that this did aid Hamilton in pursuing his own ends. It certainly aids me in pursuing mine.
Again, you judge an 18th century historical figure by 21st century standards, and not surprisingly, you find him wanting.
May '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Jerry Broaddus
Of the points you selected, only the second (Federalist 23) deals with the military. In looking at Federalist 23, I read that Hamilton is referring to the government at large, not the executive. What's your problem with this?
The stronger the executive is, the more capable it is to become a meddlesome, dangerous element. See post-WW2 U.S. foreign policy.
Jerry Broaddus
I suspect that this did aid Hamilton in pursuing his own ends. It certainly aids me in pursuing mine.
When your ends include the expansion of the government at the expense of the civil liberties and well-being of citizens, then it becomes a problem.
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Here’s something to consider:
Libya: What’s Really Behind the U.S. Action
Nov '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
First, we don’t know that removal of Qadaffi is how Obama defines victory because he hasn’t been clear on that. Besides, he’s not comfortable with “victory,” you might remember. Second, removing Qadaffi to make way for Al Qaeda or Hezbolla or the Muslim Brotherhood would not be much of a victory for us or the Libyan people. We don’t know who the rebels and Obama probably doesn’t either. We can be pretty sure they are not pro-American or pro-democracy, whoever they are. Third, the media spin is going to be a victory for Obama even if Qadaffi stays in power. I hope Paul Rahe is right and that won’t wash. But the great majority of Americans are working hard to make ends meet in a bad economy and probably don’t have the luxury of sitting in front of their computer in the middle of the day reading Ricochet. They can easily be misled.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Self-Defeat
Michael Labeit
Jerry Broaddus
The stronger the executive is, the more capable it is to become a meddlesome, dangerous element. See post-WW2 U.S. foreign policy.
Jerry Broaddus
When your ends include the expansion of the government at the expense of the civil liberties and well-being of citizens, then it becomes a problem. · Mar 30 at 12:57pm
I can make a distinction between commander and chief and everything else. Militarily, the unitary executive simply doesn't cost civil liberties of the citizens within.
The difference between having a CinC with authority, or one that asks permission may be life and death.
...
Is it possible that different intellectuals of the time might have differed on this or that civil right? Does that make one right and the rest wrong? Probably not.
In the process of invention, argument uncovers ideas and issues that an individual would miss without the discussion. Hamilton earned his place in history by being a force in that debate.
Why do you insist on holding Hamiltons positions against him? He made his arguments, won some, lost some, and lived with the consensus.
Edited on Mar 30, 2011 at 4:05pm