The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
David Corn explains, or tries to, in Mother Jones, why when it comes to American intervention in Libya, This Time It's Different:
...the president...has crafted something of an Obama Doctrine for military intervention: The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation. In short, the Anti-Bush Doctrine.
But where he's certain, the rest of us are a little confused. Britt Hume, for instance, tries to figure it out for himself. From the Daily Caller:
“As he explained it today, President Obama’s policy toward Libya consists of two apparently unconnected parts,” Hume said. “One part is regime change – getting Gaddafi out. But those bombs over Benghazi and elsewhere including the British missile attack on Gaddafi’s own compound are not about that. No, they are for the sole purpose of preventing the humanitarian calamity that Gaddafi seemed ready to unleash last week. It was apparently OK for Gaddafi’s force to crush the rebels but just not as savagely as he threatened. As for getting him out of power – that will be left to what they called wide range of other tools to isolate and pressure him in to stepping down. Now, all of this may work out. Gaddafi may be brutal, but he is not brave and nothing gets his attention like bombs on his compound, as Ronald Reagan proved in 1986. Gaddafi basically vanished for two years. The current allied attacks whatever their ostensible purpose may allow the rebels to gain the upper hand and hasten Gaddafi’s downfall. If neither of the outcomes occurs, there is no sign that the president is prepared for further, tougher step to accomplish his stated goals. His emphasis is instead is on how brief the mission will be, how limit and how soon the U.S. leadership role will be ended. Failure it seems in this case is an option.”
I'm not sure I understand exactly what Corn means by "in the nation's interest" when it comes to Libya. Stability is in our interest, really, in that oil-producing country. Unless he means that it's in our interest to support and encourage democratic movements around the world with our military intelligence and guided cruise missiles, in which case the "Obama doctrine" isn't really an "Anti-Bush Doctrine" at all, but a lot closer to "Bush-Lite" -- intervention, but on a smaller, less-effective scale.
In fact, Corn gives the game away when he compares Obama's actions in Libya to another place, and another time:
Can a no-fly zone work at this point? Is it possible to protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi's wrath—the raison d'être of the UN resolution—without placing boots on the ground? The challenge at hand may be more akin to Rwanda than Iraq.
It bears remembering that Rwanda was a failure. A genocide occurred with the tacit approval -- and non-intervention -- of a host of feckless, cowardly, and cynical non-decisions by that cesspool of corruption, the United Nations. If this is Rwanda II, let's all pray for the Libyan rebels. They're going to need it.
Our president, as Brit Hume correctly asserts, has his weasel-words handy for when it all comes apart. Qaddafi has lots of faults, but he can read. And the more he reads about the Obama Doctrine, the happier he must be. All he has to do is hang on. All he has to do is wait it out. And that's the one thing he's been able to do since 1969.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
If Corn is trying to say that, as in Rwanda, a light-footprint intervention will make everything safe and wonderful for local civilians, he should recall that the Rwandan Hutu genocidaires fight on in Congo - where they have contributed to a civilian death toll of 5 million and rising, despite (because of?) the presence of a UN "peacekeeping" force. Failure isn't just an option - it may be the only Plan B Obama's got.
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
I am still trying to get a measure if our President. Everything I have heard come out of his mouth lead me to believe that we wouldn't be taking on these kinds of missions. I thought we were headed toward less engagements in the world as we wind down Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't understand this mission at all. The only thing that seems to make sense is that Obama is just taking the path of least resistance and he was pressured into this against his better judgment.
May '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Better than whose? Wasn't aware he had better judgement. If he had better judgement he would've ordered this a couple of weeks ago when Qaddafi was on the brink, and just needed a little nudge to fall. There was practically zero chance of failure at that point. Now there's a very real one.
Is Britt Hume any relation to Brit Hume? Daughter, perhaps?
Aug '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
He did it to preempt Hillary.
His minions were blaming her for things in Egypt and Libya was headed for disaster while he was on vacation - a perfect opportunity for Hillary. It was a gambit, though, since Hillary can win either way.
First, she tried to play O by being the face of the administration for the first part of the intervention. Now, seeing the left begin to rally, she has reduced her exposure. Obama, on the other hand, is incapable of decisive action and getting it stuck in Libya is an ultimate loser for him.
1. He has eschewed the leadership role, but he will be blamed when it goes south because he ought to have assumed the leadership role.
2. If it goes well (this can only happen if Qaddafi and heirs are killed) then NATO will claim credit, while Obama will still have to deal with a left that is coming to grips with his reality.
Just contributing to the overall paranoia of Ricochet...
However, the imposition of a no fly zone without a plan to effect regime change is ultimately a losing proposition. The mission as currently constituted is a quagmire unless the regime is removed.
Jan '11
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
"The United States will join in a multilateral fight for democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation's interest and when the locals are involved and desire US participation."
This basically says that our policy is to enter civil wars against nasty totalitarians who have oil. Yes -- so much different from Iraq. And when can we expect the war to start against Iran? As it is, there is no policy. We don't go to war because of policy. Right now, policy is the explanations the politicians come up with after we've allowed events to push into war.
Look what's happening. Events are not under control. It was a myth to pretend they ever were. Reality is that national leaders are responding to events haphazardly.
Contrast that with the Cold War, for instance ... any event was dealt with precisely according to its relation to the US-USSR balance. That gave "foreign policy" a logic, even if we're glad that it went away. What ought to have replaced the Cold War was a logic for foreign policy.
The war against terror might have replaced it, but it hasn't. There's no logic to it.
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Kennedy Smith
Better than whose? Wasn't aware he had better judgement. If he had better judgement he would've ordered this a couple of weeks ago when Qaddafi was on the brink, and just needed a little nudge to fall. There was practically zero chance of failure at that point. Now there's a very real one.
I have to disagree with you there is a very real possibility that this could go badly. The US will have no problem orchestrating the fall of Kaddaffi, what comes after is the big question. I am just a little skeptical about the how useful and loyal our EU and Arab League allies will be if things go bad.
Also we still have a surge going on in Afghanistan. How does this effect an already overstretched military?
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
David Corn is a long-haul veteran of the liberal brothel and not as the piano player. Watch him turn himself into a pretzel defending Obama as the days and weeks go by.
Dec '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
E Andy Eccleston
Also we still have a surge going on in Afghanistan. How does this effect an already overstretched military?
I don't think this will affect forces in Afghanistan very much. Afghanistan is primarily a ground force operation involving the Army and the Marines.
The Navy and Air Force have little to do in Afghanistan or Iraq, relatively speaking, in combat roles. Logistics is another matter.
Also, a lot depends on how many aircraft our allies provide and for how long. The longer this goes on the more it will affect our Navy and Air Force.
Mar '11
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
The sad reality here is that people are dying because of intra-demo party infighting in our current administration. Does anyone doubt that Barry would avoid intervention at all costs? And only changed his mind because of Sec of State stomped her foot? Those of us in Sillycon Valley know well enough that a half-decison is the No Decison of All, and in this case our admin's Punch-Pulling Foreign Policy is a recipe for long, drawn-out involvement with unclear ends. The only good news here is that the Nobel Peace Prize committee proved unable to influence American foreign policy.
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Kennedy Smith
Is Britt Hume any relation to Brit Hume? Daughter, perhaps? · Mar 21 at 6:47pm
Damn you, Kennedy Smith. But it's fixed.
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Hypothetical for everyone. What happens if Libya descends into chaos? Ghaddafay loyalist begin battling the protesters in a civil war that takes on ethnic, tribal, national and religious overtones. News reports beam images all over the globe of dead and starving civilians, and other atrocities. Do we prepare ourselves for a long haul like Iraq or do we disengage like we did in Somalia? How committed is the Clinton international coalition if this becomes expensive and bloody?
Jan '11
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
This internal conflict of a sovereign nation is absolutely none of our business - the entire region could do with a prolonged stretch of chaos. If you want revenge on Daffy for the Lockerbie bombing then send a tomahawk up his ass and be done with it - don't disguise your reasons with this humanitarian bs (don't mean you personally E Andy).
Edited on Mar 21, 2011 at 8:35pmSep '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Rob Long
Damn you, Kennedy Smith. Mar 21 at 7:50pm
I'm afraid that's not very Episcopalian of you, Mr. Long. If you keep this up, your RINO squish membership card will be irrevocably lost in Dante's 8th circle of hello.
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Pseudodionysius
Rob Long
Damn you, Kennedy Smith. Mar 21 at 7:50pm
I'm afraid that's not very Episcopalian of you, Mr. Long. If you keep this up, your RINO squish membership card will be irrevocably lost in Dante's 8th circle of hello. · Mar 21 at 8:56pm
The subtext man!!! Attend to the subtext!!! "Smile when you say that!" Rob was laughing the whole time. Now, if it had been someone else...
Jul '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Scratch that. Rob's calling Obama out here instead of whispering sweet nothings, vying to run that strategically vital Barbados consulate where Rob could smoke exotic blends while the native girls message his feet and Charlie Sheen consults on sensitive matters of...ummm...state.
Sorry, Rob. We'll need three squishy affirmations ASAP or you may be redesignated Tea Party Interm. The job does not pay but the hours stink. And you are slandered by incompetent news readers all the live long day. (Hate them back. It works for me!)
Edited on Mar 22, 2011 at 1:05amAug '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Nickolas
The Navy and Air Force have little to do in Afghanistan or Iraq, relatively speaking, in combat roles. Logistics is another matter.
Mar 21 at 7:40pm
Absolutely not true. Those ground forces do not go out without Air Support - and I am not talking about eye-in-the-sky air support either. Additionally, since the Army was over-extended in Iraq, Airmen have been plucked from their stateside jobs and sent piecemeal to augment forces on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Navy provides a substantial amount of Close Air Support in Iraq, not to mention other duties in and around the Persian Gulf.
In other words - yes, the force (all US forces) are extended and stressed and Libya adds to that.
Sep '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
I don't know why smart people like Brit Hume are missing the obvious - Big Oil, Haliburton and Dick Cheney.
Dec '10
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Instugator
Nickolas
The Navy and Air Force have little to do in Afghanistan or Iraq, relatively speaking, in combat roles.
Absolutely not true. Those ground forces do not go out without Air Support... Additionally, since the Army was over-extended in Iraq, Airmen have been plucked from their stateside jobs and sent piecemeal to augment forces on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Note I said "relatively" speaking. I did not say they were doing nothing,
We do not have a large air presence constantly in the sky over Afghanistan. Most close air support in Afghanistan is by helicopter.
Nor are there large numbers of aircraft kept ready on the ground there. They are not needed in the theater. Most fighting is close combat between small units.
We have a very large Air Force. Relatively speaking its current combat duties in Afghanistan are small.
The Navy is providing little or no close air support in Iraq. Virtually all ground combat operations have ceased in Iraq. What little air support is required is easily handled by helicopters or a small number of land based air craft in Kuwait.
Feb '11
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
Pike Bishop
This internal conflict of a sovereign nation is absolutely none of our business - the entire region could do with a prolonged stretch of chaos. If you want revenge on Daffy for the Lockerbie bombing then send a tomahawk up his ass and be done with it - don't disguise your reasons with this humanitarian bs (don't mean you personally E Andy). · Mar 21 at 8:33pm
Edited on Mar 21 at 08:35 pm
Pike, why are you so sure that the "humanitarian bs" is cover for Lockerbie bombing revenge? The case could just as easily be the other way around.
Feb '11
Re: The Anti-Bush Doctrine: Failure is an Option
I'm not so sure we can reach this conclusion yet. There are real differences of opinion on the right, even. There are compelling arguments on this that go in opposite directions. Add to that the speed with which events are unfolding and the inherent incompetence and inertia of the federal government regardless of party-in-control and a mixed and muddled policy is the likely outcome. I'd need more direct evidence to chalk this up to intra-party jockeying.