An intellectual trying to justify the unjustifiable....why we are introducing instability into an area that desperately needs stability.

COMMENT BEHIND THE CURTAIN
by David Remnick

In late April, a month after the United States lobbied the U.N. Security Council to support a NATO operation shielding anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya from slaughter, Ryan Lizza published a detailed report in these pages called “The Consequentialist.” Lizza set out to describe the evolution of the President’s foreign-policy thinking and the way it applied to the regional phenomenon known as the Arab Spring. Political actors and think-tank grandees struggled to situate Obama somewhere on the idealist-realist scale, and White House aides hastened to define his priorities: the measured withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, continued vigilance against terrorism, restoration of American prestige abroad, and a deeper engagement with issues ranging from ascendant China to nuclear proliferation....

...In fact, it was the very last paragraph that captured the imagination of many readers—not least that of conservative pundits and Presidential candidates. “Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine,” Lizza wrote. “One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as ‘leading from behind.’ ” He concluded:

That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength.

Leading from behind. You could almost hear the speed-dials revving at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee. The phrase ricocheted from one Murdoch-owned editorial page and television studio to the next; Obama was daily pilloried as a timorous pretender who, out of a misbegotten sense of liberal guilt, unearned self-regard, and downright unpatriotic acceptance of fading national glory, had handed over the steering wheel of global leadership to the Élysée Palace. We were, as Mitt Romney put it, “following the French into Libya.”

Yes, he said an operation that would take a few days and then a few weeks and then a few months and the we were just supporting NATO is not leadership.  It’s a group of clueless ideologues trying to justify a massive waste of treasure and to this date still being unable to explain what is our national interest in getting Qaddafi out of office.  

Six months later, as Libyans rejoice at the prospect of a world without an unhinged despot, many of Obama’s critics still view a President who rid the world of Osama bin Laden (something that George Bush failed to do) and helped bring down Muammar Qaddafi (something that Ronald Reagan failed to do) as supinely selling out American power. Yet the Administration’s policies—a more apt description, admittedly, would have been “leading from behind the scenes”—were tailored to limiting circumstances. To review the facts: When the Tunis- and Cairo-inspired uprising in Libya began, last February, the United States was still at war in two Muslim countries and was regarded with deep mistrust throughout the region. Moreover, the U.S. military was overextended, which is why Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed any involvement.

And for some reason he wasn’t interested in the Green Movement in Iran back in 2009-10.  If there is a regime who’s interest it is for us to destabilize it’s the Mullahs in Tehran.  It is still actively building WMDs and killing our soldiers in Iran and Afghanistan.  On the other hand Libya released it’s WMD after Iraq was defeated in 03 and we can thank God for that.  But after being almost killed by Reagan in 86, Qaddafi had been fairly quiet.  Also know as having a stable situation in the country.  We need to be d on which country we want to destabilize.  Libya was no real threat to us.  Iran is.  And we need to be selective in which areas we introduce instability to.  I’ll drop you a hint.  Iran needs to be destabilized, Libya didn’t.

...What the Libyan example portends for the nearby killing floor of Syria is unclear. Part of Obama’s anti-doctrinal doctrine is that it insists on the recognition of differences in a way that Bush’s fixed ideas did not. Complex as Libya was, and remains, Syria is infinitely more so. Qaddafi had been despised in the Arab world for decades; support in the region for his removal was hardly impossible to conjure. Bashar al-Assad is proving himself no less a despot, but Syria, because of its relationship with Iran, has ties to countries on the Security Council (Russia, for one) that Libya did not. Obama has tried to embolden the opposition; he has urged countries like Turkey to cut off trade, and pushed for tougher sanctions, to make it clear that displays of tyranny will not be without cost.

Again my comments above.  We need to be selective on the targets of our military.  Syria is an adversary but it’s not a threat to America as of yet.  Iran is.

...The trouble with so much of the conservative critique of Obama’s foreign policy is that it cares less about outcomes than about the assertion of America’s power and the affirmation of its glory. In the case of Libya, Obama led from a place of no glory, and, in the eyes of his critics, no results could ever vindicate such a strategy. Yet a calculated modesty can augment a nation’s true influence. Obama would not be the first statesman to realize that it can be easier to win if you don’t need to trumpet your victory.

No you intellectual moron, our problem is not a lack of “glory” but a lack of national interest.  You don’t put your prestige, men and treasure on the line for a minor issue.  But B Hussein Obama has shown no real judgement in his time in office.  I don’t expect anything to change.