Remember That Obama Campaign Against the Bush Doctrine?

polifrog



Well, it was just campaigning.

While Obama ran against the Bush Doctrine during his campaign, he is now the driving force behind the regime change. And although Hussein's occupation of his home country ended under Bush, Kadaffy's occupation of his home country ended under Obama. Obama has his own head to claim.

Walter Russell Mead:

There is one conclusion we ought to draw from the inglorious end of the Great Loon: the Bush agenda in the Middle East is alive and well. The United States is, as Bush and Cheney so forcefully announced, a revolutionary power in the Middle East no longer seeking to prop up the status quo at any cost. (The Saudi exemption still holds.) Regime change remains on the table; the military forces of the United States stand ready to take out thugs whose viciousness has become insupportable, or who align themselves against the vital interests of this country.

What of going forward? Will Obama fully embrace the Bush Doctrine and do the hard work of helping foster democracy in Libya?

As I argued earlier in the year:

Going forward Obama will forced down another predetermined path. He will direct the US to help install a democracy in Libya. If he fails to do so his invasion of Libya will be seen as a failure.

Some presidents engineer events as Bush did through the Bush Doctrine, while others are lead by events. In this case Obama is being lead by the ongoing forces of the Bush Doctrine.






out

Considering Alternatives or the Lack Thereof in the Mid East...

polifrog



Considering alternatives or the lack thereof...

While running interference for those who did not support the Iraq War, the left refused to offer alternatives. Currently I am hearing the right grouse about our incursion into Libya yet they offer no alternative either. Libertarians, however, have been honest in offering the only alternative available ... "Stay out of their business." and this is the choice I would prefer if the US were not in the business of leading the world.

The US does lead the world, though. This leadership role is the unwelcome burden of our nation's unprecedented success. Right or wrong, the US has, as a result of being the world leader, become the donkey on which the fault of misery is pinned throughout much of the world. Some took their frustration out on the US.

For almost 2 decades we ignored them. Then on 9/11 we recognized the failure of this approach. We engaged. We had no choice as the alternative (leaving them to themselves) had been tried and had failed. Had we been an India or a Germany I doubt there would have been a 9/11 ... at least on our soil.

This is where things get interesting, though. What does the long game become? The US is not simply going to invade a nation and leave it to an uncertain future. Look at the twin successes of Germany and Japan. Additionally, consider the failure such an incursion would become if we were to leave a nation in worse shape than before we had arrived. This is the point where Obama finds himself now.

Obama clearly attempted to ignore Libya but he was mugged by the reality that as a hyper-power the US does not have this choice. Consider the accusations of dithering he was subjected to domestically. Consider the appeals of help from those attempting to overthrow Kadaffy. Consider the near waywardness of the rest of the world looking to the US for leadership that was not forthcoming. Obama had no choice but to engage Libya.

Going forward Obama will forced down another predetermined path. He will direct the US to help install a democracy in Libya. If he fails to do so his invasion of Libya will be seen as a failure.

Some presidents engineer events as Bush did through the Bush Doctrine, while others are lead by events. In this case Obama is being lead by the ongoing forces of the Bush Doctrine.

It leaves one to wonder, though, did Bush create the Bush Doctrine or was it simply his only choice?




out