Foreign Affairs

Obama’s International Military Policy–Revolutions “R” U.S.?

Is President Barack Obama a global revolutionary?
 
Was his use of our forces in the Libya war just cheap political opportunism, or an emerging policy of aiding revolutionaries who seek to depose dictators?
 
Such a policy might be summed up as Revolutions “R” U.S.  The premise seems to be that it’s cheaper and easier to let rebels fight civil wars on the ground while America provides air support, and perhaps covert assistance.
 
The possible results are speculative at best.  The death of Muammar Gaddafi provides an opportunity for democracy in Libya—but no guarantee.  It also provides a chance for Sharia law governance in Libya.
 
Gaddhfi was definitely a threat to his own people, but well past his prime as a threat to America. 
 
Six days after Saddam Hussein’s capture in 2003, Gaddafi renounced his weapons of mass destruction program, and cooperated with international inspectors who confirmed it.  As analyst Clifford May recently concluded, “So he [Gaddafi] gave up his drive to develop nuclear weapons and coughed up useful intelligence on how that project had been organized.  He stopped financing terrorism—as far as we’re aware.  He did continue oppressing his own people.”
 
Perhaps Gaddafi still aided terrorists on the sly, but President Obama’s approach seems indifferent to whether a tyrant is a threat to America, focusing instead on whether he’s a threat to his own citizens.
 
Vice President Joe Biden bragged that it cost the U.S. “only $2 billion” to oust Gaddafi.  The notion seems to be that the U.S. won’t do wars anymore, but will do revolutions because they’re cheaper.  “In this case, America spent $2 billion total and didn’t lose a single life.  This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has been in the past,” Biden said.
 
There is speculation that this pattern might be repeated in Syria.  White House spokesman Jay Carney has reaffirmed President Obama’s position that Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad “has lost his legitimacy to rule.”  Yes, Assad assists Hezbollah, but Obama’s stated rationale is based on something different, namely the thousands of Syrian protesters that have been killed by Assad’s forces.
 
If halting injustice is Obama’s basis for America to intervene in revolutions, then where does it start and stop?  And will those dictators seek to retaliate by backing covert or terrorist acts against America?
 
According to CBS News, there are at least 29 “enduring dictators” comparable to Gaddafi and Assad, including Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Yemen, Iran, Ethiopia and the Sudan.  CBS notes, “Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, in power since 1989, actually has an international arrest warrant outstanding against him for war crimes committed in Darfur.  As many as 400,000 people, mostly civilians, have perished in that conflict.”
 
Yet we’ve not intervened where the most lives were at risk.  Decisions to intervene have become arbitrary and perhaps political.  That matches President Obama’s domestic philosophy—he wants Chicago-style discretion to give billions in subsidies, loans and grants to a favored few, to reward friends with indulgences from ObamaCare, and to do special favors for organized labor.
 
The White House suggests that we’re paying the price of creating democracies.  That sounds noble in theory, but it is suspect in practice.
 
The ousting of Hosni Mubarak as Egypt’s president has not yet produced democratic elections, but instead created an environment that has caused the deaths of 26 Coptic Christians by a military regime’s overreaction.  In Libya, it’s unknown whether the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamic jihadists may become the successors to Gaddafi.
 
As The Heritage Foundation’s Dr. James Carafano notes, “Perils in Libya may be far from over.  The nation is awash with weapons not controlled by the government.  Remnants of the old regime may continue to go on fighting.  Extremists may yet make their presence felt.”
 
Regime change decisions should not be made by the President alone.  They should involve the Congress too.
 
Nor is economizing a sound reason to back a revolution.  Carafano notes, “Leading from behind might be all very well if U.S. vital interests are not on the line.  The U.S. must, however, have both the capacity and the will to safeguard its interests when threats significantly endanger the safety, freedom and prosperity of Americans.  . . . The U.S. cannot defend itself on the cheap.”
 
Obama’s approach seems to be support for inexpensive (to us) revolutions against tyrants, even when there is no American security interest.  And even when we’re unsure who and what the insurgents will put in the deposed tyrant’s place.  And where we don’t know what backlash we are risking.
 
By injecting the U.S. into civil wars, Obama risks more than making Uncle Sam the world’s policeman.  He’s also making us the world’s community reorganizer.

Sign Up
  • 1LonesomeDove1

    You have corrected anything but in your own fantasy world where you’re king of “right”, but this is the real world where you’ll get challenged for being an idiot. Get used to it, because so far all you’ve done is throw little boy tantrums when we don’t let you off the hook.

    Call me whatever you want. Those who matter here know what you are. A spoiled brat who got his way as a child, and tries to bully for what he wants while he occupies a man’s body.

  • Ed_USA

    “Those who matter here”

    And who is that? Have you not yet figured out that nobody here matters? Not me, and certainly not you. Most of the authors don’t matter either. Maybe O’Reilly and, gods help us, Coulter, have enough of a following to “matter”, but that’s about it. Otherwise it’s all noise.

    You’ll note that I ignore most of it. When I see grave errors of fact I’ll straighten them out. I’ll sometimes try to dissuade some people from believing laissez-faire dogma. But mostly I ignore the crap here.

    I’d certainly like to ignore you, but you seem to be fixated on stalking me. I’m quite aware after all this time that there’s little point in correcting your facts. You don’t really care about facts. I rarely respond to a post by you that is not a reply to one of mine. Why bother?

    But you can’t seem to go away quietly. You seem to like having your ignorance exposed, such as when you called me “stupid” today for my correct use of the term “spam” which you did not know enough to understand. Self respecting people would be chastened by that, but not you. Each humiliation you receive only seems to make you want the next one more.

    If you were an adult you’d ignore me, just as I’d like to ignore you. But you can’t, can you?

  • 1LonesomeDove1

    Now this is one of the most unfortunate things that results from being an atheist. Not only do you believe that “you” don’t matter, but you believe no one else matters either. Herein lies the reason for your hateful comments to people and your lack of self control in that area.
    You might have morals, but you’re not ruled by them, and you won’t allow them to sway you from your selfish ends, desires…….whatever….so you alter them, or make them up as you go along.
    If you want to insult someone who was trying to debate you honestly…you just make up a moral that allows you to do just that. If you want to violate your own PC liberal rules against all bigotry, as in your bigotry against age, then you make up a moral that allows you to violate that rule that so many of you claim to follow. The same bigotry that you throw in the faces of all conservatives whenever you need a cheap shot win.
    Hence; your morals are useless, as they’re useless to any hypocrite like you.

    What matters here are the many who read these pages yet don’t post. Those who read to help themselves form opinions; opinions that can be damaged when one like you is allowed to comment unchallenged, and that’s your real problem here. You hate challenge.
    You deny this of course, but that’s the truth of it. You expect people to let you get away with saying things they know to be untrue, and if they refuse to bow to you then what follows is your usual tantrums of insults and names.

    This is where other fine conservative posters are bigger than I. For they know that as soon as you do this, you have lost the debate, and they just walk away from you having no desire to argue with a spoiled child who didn’t get his way.

    When I say “those who matter”, I mean those conservatives who post across this site. Those who know me and have respect for me.
    They outnumber you; they have agreed with me against you on more than one occasion, so your claim of my being irrelevant is and empty one meant only to make you feel better. But it shouldn’t.

    When you need to insult people, belittle them….call the names etc, it makes people dislike and disrespect “you”, not your opponent. It’s “your” message that suffers, not your opponents…………certainly not mine.
    ____________________________________________
    “When I see grave errors of fact I’ll straighten them out. I’ll sometimes try to dissuade some people from believing laissez-faire dogma. But mostly I ignore the crap here.”

    Here’s an example of your arrogance. You have actually elected yourself as “god of all truth”, and you sit on high to look down upon the unwashed who desperately need your guidance. No possibility that you could ever be wrong as we mere mortals sometimes are.
    Nope….a bloated bag of ego like you needs to elevate himself above everyone else, because he fears that no one will pay any attention to him if he doesn’t. It’s a mental complex ed, and you need to take care of it.
    ____________________________________________
    “I’d certainly like to ignore you, but you seem to be fixated on stalking me. I’m quite aware after all this time that there’s little point in correcting your facts. You don’t really care about facts. I rarely respond to a post by you that is not a reply to one of mine. Why bother?”

    Stalking you???? If you haven’t noticed, there is a “follow” function provided by Disqus that’s meant to allow us to follow people we’d like to read or debate with. If you don’t like it, then Disqus also has a function called “delete your account”.

    I’m perfectly happy to allow you to correct my facts if you can. Your problem is……………you can’t, and that doesn’t set well with you. You see…..you’re confused between fact and opinion. You believe your opinions to be facts, which they’re not,.so apparently you regard all challenges to your opinions as a slap in the face.
    And you did indeed respond to posts of mine that were not a response to you…………..in the beginning. That’s when I learned to dislike you, and when you learned to avoid me if possible.
    As I remember, I corrected you when you said conservatives were against immigration. You left out the word “illegal”, and you did so in order to demonize those who oppose you ideologically. You didn’t like being corrected, and now I understand why seeing as how you’ve appointed yourself as the only one worthy of correcting anything, but what really angers you is that I always have an answer for you and I never let you get away from me, nor do I allow you to go off on one of your deflective tangents. Tics ya off, don’t it?
    __________________________________________
    “But you can’t seem to go away quietly. You seem to like having your ignorance exposed, such as when you called me “stupid” today for my correct use of the term “spam” which you did not kn……”

    And it just goes on and on……this arrogant self importance of yours. Self elected god of Human Events put here to educate all of us who are unworthy of your presence.

    Spam: n.
    Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
    tr.v., spammed, spam·ming, spams.

    1. To send unsolicited e-mail to.
    2. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/spam

    * Encyclopædia Britannica

    Spam: (popular marketing tool) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/941678/spam

    Grandiosity thy name is ed:

    1. The person exaggerates talents, capacity and achievements in an unrealistic way.
    2. The person believes in his/her invulnerability or does not recognise his/her limitations.
    3. The person has grandiose fantasies.
    4. The person believes that he/she does not need other people.
    5. The person over-examines and downgrades other people, projects, statements, or dreams in a unrealistic manner.
    6. The person regards himself/herself as unique or special when compared to other people.
    7. The person regards himself/herself as generally superior to other people.
    8. The person behaves self-centeredly and/or self-referentially.
    9. The person behaves in a boastful or pretentious way.

    The following is you in a nut shell (no pun intended)

    “Securely buttressed by such self-beliefs, ‘in a grandiose identity…all that is unpleasant to my self-image I can ditch. I can look down my nose with contempt at the child-like ways of my fellows, and I can get rid of my infantile self by pushing somewhere outside myself. However the downside to putting myself into a grandiose state is that ‘the grandiose self is extremely vulnerable, and…if something does not go my way, I make a great fuss, because I am a king who has been frustrated.”