Bass-ackward leadership
I’ve already expressed my support for the recent US military action against the Libyan government, but I do depart with the President on his handling of the situation. If you can even call it “handling” at all. Obama explained why he authorized the military action today from sunny Santiago, Chile;
“The core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community, almost unanimously, says there’s a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place … we can’t simply stand by with empty words. We have to take some sort of action,” Mr. Obama said at a joint press conference in Santiago with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera.
Mr. Obama said the U.S. is taking the lead in the attacks with the goal of “taking out Libyan air defenses” so that an eventual no-fly zone can be imposed against the forces of Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Mr. Obama said it will be a matter of “days” before that first phase is completed and the U.S. turns leadership over to others to enforce the no-fly zone.
After publicly dithering over Libya, he finds himself in the position of explaining what he’s already done when all of that should have been done while he was plotting out his March Madness strategy. That’s what a leader does…when he takes the action, the rest of us should have known why already. Now he’s just being defensive.
Ask any squad leader if they explain to their troops why they’re walking through withering machine gun fire before or after the mission.
Being a leader means convincing people of your plan’s merits so you don’t have to spend the rest of your life explaining it to dolts like me. I mean look at the opening line of that quote above; “The core principle that has to be upheld here…” Why is he explaining core principles that should already be firmly planted in the gray matter of Americans?
The Washington Times quotes his notification to Congress;
Monday afternoon Mr. Obama sent a letter to congressional leaders officially notifying them of the military action and saying it is “in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as commander in chief and chief executive.”
That doesn’t explain anything about how it’s “in national security…interests”.
We all knew what was going to happen what with carrier groups steaming towards Libya’s coast for weeks, What we didn’t have was the explanation of why we were sending our sons and daughters into yet another war. Still, I haven’t heard an explanation of what the national imperative was that required that the lives of Americans were put in danger.
I mean, I know, but no one has said out loud that this is another war for oil. I don’t have a problem with that but I don’t want to be the only saying it.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
You were expecting leadership from this guy?????
What we didn’t have was the explanation of why we were sending our sons and daughters into yet another war.
What we don’t appear to have is a simple acknowledgment that ‘our sons and daughters’ may be going into harms way.
It may be two sides of the same coin, but it reeks of:
The Israelis are more than a little nervous about this whole “Obama Doctrine.”
If he and the Europeans have endorsed the notion of external nations insinuating themselves militarily in civil disturbances within the borders of a nation — all in the name of protecting civilian lives — then what will happen in the next Gaza uprising?
Will Iran, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon cite the Obama “Doctrine” to impose a no-fly zone and start bombing Israel?
Has Obama just handed the Islamic clerics the moral club they have been struggling for decades to use against Israel?
This idiot in chief could’nt organize and lead a two car funeral.
“The Israelis are more than a little nervous about this whole “Obama Doctrine.”
It is not only the Israeli’s that are nervous. So am I.
This coalition is showing cracks already. When this thing falls apart fingers will point to Obama.
It is already starting to fall apart, the Arab Union is upset that ground targets got hit. If we are going to protect civilians how are we supposed to do so without being able to target tanks and arty? More importantly how can we help anyone if we are strictly enforcing a no fly zone? In my mind this puts our Men and Women in harms way for no other reason then to say we tried to do something.
Plus some on the left are starting to make noise about this. Not many of them, but if this thing goes on long enough he is gonna get LBJ’d.
The first question Obama should have been asked was to explain how his stance here as Pres__ent Obama in 2011 meshes with his stance as Senator Obama in 2007:
==========
As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.
Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.
“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”
Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.
GruntSgt said:
‘This idiot in chief could’nt organize and lead a two car funeral.’
That implies that this IiC could organize a one car funeral and you know damn well that would not happen …
Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.
Welcome to the “Communitarian” world.
ERF! #11 is me, sowwy!
I just wonder how this will play out in other theaters. Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria and yes as you pointed out @3 even Israel. This is a precedent that cannot be maintained in any way shape or form. I think Obama has stumbled into a hornets nest policy that does not bode well for anyone. Had we stopped the Libyan jets when they first flew, that would have been one thing. But now what? Would have been nice had he been this forceful with Iran in ’09. But now? With Libya. I don’t think so.
OT. Kinda ironic that Libya got awful quiet when “W” was in office but now…….
And in latest developments:
–France won’t take the ball because the Arab League won’t come on board cause they’re bent out of shape.
–NATO won’t take the ball because the Turks are all bent out of shape.
–Britain won’t take the ball because they can’t.
Guess who that leaves? SSDD.
To quote Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes ” If this is the best they’ve got, we’ll be running this place in 6 weeks” and frankly that is what worries me, I’d rather not.
We can roll over him at our leisure. I’d rather not tie the USA/USMC babysitting another country if it can be helped. Our manpower is not unlimited, we are going to be in Afghanistan for a few years as it is and we have real state actors to potenionally deal with. I’d like to have some kind of strategic reserve.
This is not the same situation as Iraq. Saddam is a man who broke every treaty obligation he signed at the end of the first gulf war; sponsored terrorist organizations, stole from the oil for food programe, not to mention the WMDs(and programmes) various Intel agencies assumed he had. The UN “noose” was ineffective and had run its course.
We had to make a decision to let him go or over throw the government. President Bush chose regime change, and used Iraq as template for democracy for the middle east. Our franchise against the islamists’ one. Will/could it work? We’ll see. Should we have? Time will tell. War of choice? Yep. We had more then justification to do it though.
Gaddafi has been afraid of us since Reagan bombed Tripoli in the 80s. When we overthrew Saddam he cut a quick deal to give up his chemical weapons program. Hes no threat to us or our allies.
We also know nothing of the opposition. Who exactly are we backing here?
There is almost no reason for us to get involved here and many not to. Humanitarian causes can only ever be a secondary considerations not first.
Before we skip into another conflict can someone please explain to me what our national interest is and what are objective is first? Nuff said.