President Obama’s trip to South America was routed around the political storms in Libya and a nuclear meltdown in Japan, but by the time his flight departed for Brazil, President Obama had already committed US forces to yet another war in the Middle East.
Political pundits describe the president’s decision to go to war as ”too much, too late”. By the time his flight landed in Brazil, President Obama’s new war in the Middle East had already enraged some social and union groups in Rio de Janeiro. They “have declared Obama persona non grata,” accusing the president of "bellicose policy of occupation" in foreign countries, and of attacking people "in the name of the war on terror."
If that sounds familiar it is because similar language was used by critics against President Bush when he invaded Iraq. The difference is that President Bush waged his war with the consent of Congress,; Bush's war was approved by a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House. Also, President Bush had a clear military objective: regime change in Iraq, whether or not the coalition found evidence of nuclear weapons.
President Obama gave Libya an ultimatum, saying the terms of a UN Security Council resolution backing action to defend civilians were non-negotiable. And, though President Obama met with key congressional leaders to discuss Libya, his failure to seek congressional approval prior to attacking Libya, and further failing to outline an end game has angered lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich calling the president’s decision a ”a nightmare.”
As doubts mount over the president’s decision to start a new war, the coalition is “suffering from a lack of direction and waning support.” Another unpopular war could not come at a worse time for this president. The president’s approval numbers are slipping in the most recent polls, and a clear perception of dithering and indeed, passivity, has provoked concerns on both sides of the aisle regarding the president’s handling of Libya in particular, and the budget in general. With the unemployment rate hovering at unacceptable levels, and dropping poll numbers, the last thing the president needs is a third war in the Middle East.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh boyohboyohboy -
"Bush light"! Wanna compare Obama to Bush? You got it! Starting with the Gipper when Dubya's daddy was VP, of course.
Reagan sent ground troops to Lebanon, Panama, and Grenada...none of whom posed an imminent threat to America. Not to mention Iran-Contra, of course....
Clinton? He - like Obama with Libya - decided to limit America's involvement in Kosovo to air power only...and it worked.
Bush? The day after 9/11, he told Rumsfeld to make plans for invading Iraq...and he continued to ignore all indications that NO, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and NO, Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, and NO, Iraq posed no imminent threat to America. He invaded Afghanistan, too - which wouldn't have been so bad, considering 9/11, but then he began ignoring Afghanistan and sent most of our power to Iraq instead.
The result? Obama got to inherit both wars. He's tried to make the best out of this crap sandwich he was handed (not to mention something called the Great Recession that came with it) in January of 2009, is presently drawing down troops in Iraq, and will begin drawing down troops in Afghanistan in 2014, IIRC.
But this Libya thing is the only one that Obama initiated...and so far he seems to be following the SAME path that Clinton took - air power only, no ground troops...and lots of diplomacy to the surrounding nations.
Frankly, this particular 'Bush light' is a heck of a lot better than 'Bush classic'!
2 - Richard E
G.C. You're letting your politics get in the way of the facts. Libya is no Kosovo, and Gaddafi is no Slobodan Miloševi?. Why are you attacking Bush, when this article is about Obama's war? Iraq and Afganistan? Those are wars that now belong to President Obama, because he could have ended them during his first year in office with the flick of a pen. Instead, he escalateded one war, and continued Bush's strategy for winding down the other. This article is about Obama's war and why it violates his own declared principles. You failed to address that issue, didn't you?
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Richard E -
"Bush Light" - that, sir, is a comparison, and I am quite justified in aiding the author in making a proper comparison.
When it comes to violating one's own declared principles, well, principles are one thing, and the realities of being president is something else altogether. Remember "Read my lips - no new taxes"? And what about the eleven times that Reagan raised taxes during his administrations? Of course they weren't called tax hikes, but that's what they were....
4 - Richard E.
G.C. So, what does that have to do with Obama starting a third war in the Middle East?
5 - Glenn Contrarian
And why is it that when conservatives attack Obama, they get SO ticked off when I politely point out how much worse their guys were in the same position? It seems to me that they would have room to talk if their guy did BETTER...but seeing as how their guys did worse - and repeatedly so - I guess all they can do is cry "Hey, no fair!" when I point out how their last three guys were all worse than any of our last three guys...
...the only exception being that Reagan won the Cold War, which is one of the greatest achievements of any president. Other than that (and bringing a sense of pride back to the military), the guy was pretty much a disaster.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Richard -
I notice you didn't answer my reply about 'declared principles' and Bush and Reagan, did you?
Here's the thing, Richard - if you judge a man on what he does but refuse to compare his actions to those taken by other men in the same position, then the standard you require him to meet is by necessity purely arbitrary.
How can you possibly judge what a president does without comparing his actions to what other presidents did? If you didn't compare Bush to any of the other presidents, you could make him look like an angel! Comparisons, then, are CRUCIAL in order to judge a man's character.
7 - Richard E.
G.C. I haven't attacked anyone. You are the one who has taken this discussion off-track, going back to the 1980's for whatever reason. My point is that President Obama could have ended both the Iraq and Afganistan wars, during his first year in office, with a stroke of the pen, and you and I both know that Congress would have gone along with that decision. But, he chose not to. The author has pointed out that this President has started yet a third war in the Middle East, in direct contradiction to his own stated principles, and in fact has done that which he accused President Bush of doing--starting a dumb war. I think it happens to be a valid point, as do many people on the left.
8 - Clavos
And why is it that when conservatives attack Obama, they get SO ticked off when I politely point out how much worse their guys were in the same position?
Because it's irrelevant -- it doesn't change the aspect or importance of whatever the individual big cheese is doing. Comparing O's actions to W's in no way makes O's better or worse (or W's, for that matter).
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
No, you're wrong - because as I said, if you judge a man without having someone with whom to compare him, your judgement is therefore completely arbitrary.
You can't judge a man and his actions without comparing what he has done to what other citizens have or have not done. Likewise, you cannot condemn a president without knowing whether he is really as bad as presidents who you have not condemned.
10 - Clavos
because as I said, if you judge a man without having someone with whom to compare him, your judgement is therefore completely arbitrary.
You can't judge a man and his actions without comparing what he has done to what other citizens have or have not done. Likewise, you cannot condemn a president without knowing whether he is really as bad as presidents who you have not condemned.
That's total bull. That's the least effective way to judge someone. There are many more ways to size up an individual than by comparison with another person, and they're far more cogent.
You say you're a religious Christian man. Your own religion teaches you better ways to judge people than by comparison with others. the standards of your own community and culture are better, not to mention your own standards.
If you judge Bam by W's performance, you've lowered the bar to an unacceptable level (anybody could be better); likewise, if you judge by comparison to one of the founders, you've set it to a level Obama's not capable of achieving -- he hasn't enough character.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Did I say compare him only to Dubya? No. Look at all the presidents!
IMO it is hypocritical to accuse Obama of doing a thing wrong without calling for the heads of the previous presidents who did FAR worse by any measure you care to use!
Clavos, can you not see that this is nothing more than political maneuver by the Right? Reagan and Dubya had five instances of sending in ground troops on foreign soil between them - and we're still fighting two of those wars as a result. Yet where was the oh-so-righteous protest of the Right? NOWHERE...until Obama did it, and THEN they howl about how he didn't consult Congress (except for the Republican leadership (McCain, Boehner) who were claiming he should've done it sooner.
It's just like how the Republicans under Dubya was handed a budget SURPLUS that was supposed to completely pay off our national debt in less than two decades...and then they blew up the deficit with two unfinanced wars and Medicare Part D and gave us a budget deficit so bad that we're paying over $200B per year in interest alone...
...but when Obama came in and had to push for the stimulus package that DID work to keep America out of a second Depression according to most economists, all of a sudden, lo and behold, the Republicans become oh-so-thrifty deficit hawks howling about how Obama's ruining the economy!
No, Clavos, the frankly hypocritical arguments by the Right against Obama's airstrikes against Libya are political maneuver and nothing more.
Those protests from the LEFT, now, at least most of these aren't hypocritical because most (not all) of the Left was against our ground-troop involvement in Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, and especially Iraq.
12 - Richard E.
G.C. You repeatedly ignore the point of this article. President Obama specifically defined a "dumb war," and further said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars. By attacking Libya he has done exactly that which he accused W of doing, and worse yet, he is doing exactly what he said he would not do. He has started a "dumb war" by his own definition, and he has started it without consent of Congress, which he has said the office of the Presidency does not have the authority to do. You are so partisan, you can't even acknowledge that Obama has violated his own values and principles.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
All wars ARE dumb...but that does NOT mean they are unnecessary.
What you're doing, Richard, is demanding that the decisions that the president faces are black-and-white...but are you really so naive that you don't understand that the choices he faces are almost NEVER black-and-white, but many, many shades of gray?
And I'll point out to YOU, Richard, that what one says on the campaign trail does NOT always jive with the reality of the office. Remember Bush 41's "Read my lips - no new taxes!" pledge? And what happened? In order to pull us out of the early '90's recession (that cost him his reelection), he raised taxes...and our economy did very well under the Clinton administration - but Clinton never did credit Bush with making the hard decision to raise taxes.
Any president who refuses to change his mind when circumstances necessitate that he do something other than he pledged on the campaign trail, then that president is a tyrant. It takes COURAGE to change one's mind when one sees that he was wrong about something.
And if you think presidents are sometimes forced to do something different than what they promised on the campaign trail, then you have some naivete that you need to work on.
One more thing - you don't hear me complaining about Obama's failure to close Gitmo, right? Do you know why that is? I personally want that place closed because it's a grand injustice that shames my country...
...but I also know that when two men of diametrically-opposed viewpoints agree on something, they're probably right on that thing. Besides the huge mistake of creating the mess in the first place, Bush decided to keep the prison at Gitmo open and occupied. Obama pledged to close it down and I believe he was entirely sincere in that pledge...but once he was faced with the reality of the situation, he could not force it to close down.
So that tells me that there's a REASON it can't be closed down...and that's why I leave the subject alone: two men of diametrically-opposed viewpoints have essentially agreed that it must stay open.
14 - Clavos
Funny how all the libs have suddenly become hawks just 'cause their man went to war.
15 - Baronius
Lest the tables be completely turned, conservatives need to support the military action or articulate very clearly why don't, and they better not sit around spitefully hoping that it falls apart on the current President's watch. They'd also be wise not to turn the microphone over to the Paulers who oppose any military engagement: while such people have been honorably consistent, giving them any additional exposure will make the GOP look like opportunists.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Did we now? If you'd listen to liberal pundits, you'd find most of them do not approve of Obama's airstrikes against Libya.
But since that doesn't fit in with your apparent worldview of liberals-are-evil-incarnate-or-maybe-just-stupid, you just go on with your assumption that we're all hawks, now....
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius #15 -
Well said!
18 - zingzing
yeah, clavos. but them "hawks" sure have gotten rather wimpy lately, haven't they?
hi, i'm a hawk. i'm not going to hurt you, but you can't fly here. and i'm going to stay off the ground. looks dirty. and i've got to ask all my friends what they think first. and maybe then... no... wait.... just stop hurting each other, ok? jeez. please? that would be nice.
it's certainly not like the good old hawks of the past... let the bodies hit the floor! let the bodies hit the floor! or whatever nu-metal garbage real hawks used to listen to. (do they still? i dunno. tis possible.)
19 - Costello
Anyone who thinks all the libs have become hawks might want to pull his head out of the sand. There are libs calling for O's impeachment over this.
And since when did a joint military operation with other countries become O's war?
20 - Richard E.
G.C. You continue to ignore the core issue of this article. Obama specifically and narrowly defined what constituted a "dumb war." Either he was lying to score political points, or he has now changed his mind, as you point out, and believes that President Bush's war was in reality a good war--not a dumb war. Either way, he broke his promise to the American people as to the conditions under which he would take our nation into war. Also, as a constitutional expert, President Obama specifically said the US Constitution does not allow a President to engage in war without authorization from Congress. So, not only did he lie to the American people about starting dumb wars, but under his interpretation of the Constitution, he has violated the US Constitution by going to war without the consent of Congress. And, that is what has caused both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to voice their anger. You want to make this a political argument. But it is a moral issue involving Obama's character and values, and it is a legal issue involving a violation of the US Constitution, according to Obama's own expert opinion.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
'scuse me? You're saying that he was either trying to score political points or he actually believes that Bush's war was a 'good war'? I guess it never occurred to you that he's trying to do the best he can with the crap sandwich he inherited in January of 2009 - two wars, one of which was wildly illegal far beyond what's going on now in Libya, and a little thing called the Great Recession.
But I guess to you, our limited involvement in Libya is every bit as bad as that trillion-plus-dollar war in Iraq that cost thousands of American military lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives.
22 - Clavos
And since when did a joint military operation with other countries become O's war?
Oh puleeze.
Every war is the US's. Paraphrasing an aphorism we used to say in the sixties, if the UN gave a war and the US sat it out, the war would succumb in days.
23 - Clavos
I guess it never occurred to you that he's trying to do the best he can with the crap sandwich he inherited in January of 2009
Awww, poor Bammy and all his Wibbie fwiends...
24 - Clavos
yeah, clavos. but them "hawks" sure have gotten rather wimpy lately, haven't they?
Heh. Ya think, zing?
25 - Richard E.
G.C. Once again you deflect from the core issue of this article. By the way, did President Obama personally convey to you that "he's trying to do the best he can," or did you make that up? President Obama is the one who narrowly defined what is a "dumb war," in the context of defining why he believed Bush's wars were dumb. So, if you believe that President Obama is "trying to do the best he can," then you must also believe that President Bush was doing the best that he could when he went to war. Remember, we're discussing a very narrow issue here. That issue is the defintion of what constitutes a "dumb war" according President Obama's own words. You do not dispute that he has violated his own promise not to engage in "dumb wars," and you do not dispute that he violated his own interpretation of the law of the land regarding the President's authority to engage in wars. So, if you are going to make assumptions about Obama's state of mind to justify his "dumb war" in Libya, then you must also give President Bush the same benefit regarding his "dumb wars." But, let's not stray from the point. President Obama has started a "dumb war" by his own defintion, and he has violated the constitution if we are to interpret it according to President Obama's legal interpretation, a man who is a legal expert on the US Constituion. You want to make it a political argument, but in order to make that work, you have to make assumptions about the President's state of mind. That's messed up.