polifrog
I support democratization in the Middle East, however I have an open mind to to the possibility of failure.
Here former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, explains the fact that frequently world events drive presidential decisions. Although we hold to the ides that our president guides our nation, the fact is that presidents are often guided by the ceaseless and unpredictable unfolding history.
Additionally, as Scheuer mentions, it does not help matters when the press carries water for the president.
out
Showing posts with label libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libya. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Weakening America's War Making Ablity...
polifrog
Not since WW2 has congress declared war, however wars have been fought. Wars are now initiated under a single individual, the president. This weakens America's ability to make war.
It should be noted that Obama's approach to prosecuting the war in Libya not only side stepped congress entirely, but his approach has laid the precedent for sourcing legitimacy for conducting a US war through the UN. Obama has effectively derived legitimacy for the war in Libya through the UN rather than congress. This approach, if left unchecked, leaves the use of American military force under the influence of an inter-governmental organization who's interests are often not aligned with America's further weakening America's war making ability.
It is sad to see our spineless congress with whom Constitutional authority to declare war resides allow the weakening of American might.
Not since WW2 has congress declared war, however wars have been fought. Wars are now initiated under a single individual, the president. This weakens America's ability to make war.
Wars have become tied to the presidents under which they are initiated and more generally to the party of the president in power. It becomes "Bush's war" or "Obama's war" and more generally a democrat war or republican war. From the outset the roots of division are sown.
Kuwait (First war with Iraq) and the Iraq War (under Bush 2) - The left argued against these wars while the right supported them. Contrast this with Bosnia under Clinton, Libya under Obama in which the right took the mantle of arguing against the war while the left did not.
War has become a hammer in the hands of the opposition with which to beat the administration the administration in power. Witness conservatives beating Obama over a war that couldn't (in the real world) be more similar to Bush's. Bush was attacked for implementing the Bush Doctrine by democrats and now Obama is being attacked for implementing the Bush Doctrine by conservatives.
This dynamic would be reduced if wars were properly initiated through congress as the decision would be closer to "the people" hence increasing the legitimacy of the war in question and negating to some extent the Rep/Dem patina imparted to the missions.
This dynamic, this congressional abdication of power to the executive, reduces our nation's war making ability.
It should be noted that Obama's approach to prosecuting the war in Libya not only side stepped congress entirely, but his approach has laid the precedent for sourcing legitimacy for conducting a US war through the UN. Obama has effectively derived legitimacy for the war in Libya through the UN rather than congress. This approach, if left unchecked, leaves the use of American military force under the influence of an inter-governmental organization who's interests are often not aligned with America's further weakening America's war making ability.
It is sad to see our spineless congress with whom Constitutional authority to declare war resides allow the weakening of American might.
out
Monday, March 21, 2011
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
