It Says Nothing Flattering about Our American Consciousness that President Obama Started a Third War (in Libya) and Most Americans Have already Forgotten about It

© 2011 Peter Free

 

21 April 2011

 

 

The world is moving so fast, it’s effectively standing still — the more we appear to do, the more we fence ourselves into the same predicaments

 

President Obama, with support from a large number of American political leaders, started a third United States war in a Muslim country by attacking Colonel Qaddafi’s regime in Libya a few weeks ago.

 

Given that the United States has virtually no national interests in Libya, the President’s action (though understandable emotionally) was:

 

(i) militarily reckless — because we are still fighting in Afghanistan and remain heavily committed in Iraq;

 

 

(ii) financially irresponsible — in view of the budget deficit;

 

 

and

 

 

(iii) geopolitically stupid — because in the long run it is probably going to anger more Muslim people than it soothes.

 

 

The President seems to have thought that — by suddenly withdrawing the bulk of the American air contingent from the NATO effort in Libya — he could have his cake and eat it too.

 

He must have calculated that he could appear to be (a) righteously humane by intervening and (b) pragmatically wise by immediately withdrawing the bulk of American pilots and military infrastructure.

 

Instead, President Obama made a half-behinded mess of things by leaving NATO to flounder ineffectually after America abandoned its leadership and commitment.

 

 

Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute eloquently agrees

 

Doug Bandow wrote in regard to foreseeable “mission creep” in Libya:

 

Indeed, U.S. involvement in this conflict is simply stupid. The stakes are minimal, the objectives are confused, the benefits are negligible, the resources are inadequate, the costs are excessive, and the consequences are dangerous. A month ago the president was right to reject the use of ground forces. Today he should end U.S. participation in Libya's civil war.

 

© 2011 Doug Bandow, Libya: Resisting the Siren Call of Creeping Intervention, Huffington Post (21 April 2011)

 

 

In the short term, and narrowly speaking, perhaps the President was politically astute

 

If the public remains uninterested in Libya, then the President will arguably have benefited from his humanitarian stand (by intervening), and will not subsequently be held accountable for the mess NATO predictably made of the situation after America essentially withdrew.

 

Shoot a bunch of missiles, make a bit of potent noise, and go home.  What could be better for our show-boating, militaristically-inclined leaders than that?

 

 

However, the broader picture confirms something disturbing about President Obama’s sense of leadership

 

I have written several times (here, here, here, and here) about President Obama’s pragmatic (politically self-serving) cynicism.  He displayed it in Afghanistan and, now, Libya.

 

I could tolerate that trait, if it did not squander American lives, deplete present and future financial resources, and generally contribute to the burden of aggravated hatred around the world.

 

There is something ignoble about powerful men and women who casually throw bullets and bombs (at no risk to themselves), simply to advance their personal and political interests.

 

 

An obligation to the unit, combined with intelligent competence and courage is a better way to lead

 

I opposed President George W. Bush because he was incorrigibly, hubristically, and strategically mistaken at most turning points.  But I never questioned his commitment to his sense of American freedom and purpose.  The man was almost self-destructively committed to advancing these ideas around the world.

 

I oppose President Obama because he is as mistaken at most strategic forks in the road as President Bush was, and, unlike President Bush, appears to lack a soulful commitment to ideas larger than himself.  I question his allegiance to anything beyond the expedient immediacy of the political moment.  Vote-getting rhetoric is not the same laudable purpose.

 

A seasoned platoon leader could do a better job as a war president than either of these men have.

 

A directly-in-the-fray combat leader might have a sounder sense of what war costs in lives and psyches.  He might be less willing to grandstand. And less willing to commit troops to situations where he would not share death and wounds' burdens.