Obama: a cautious warrior president

Editor's Note:  It is always instructive to see what Orwellian Doublethink is being passed off by the mainstream media.  Like this beauty from Obama: "Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."  Yes, War is Peace.  For the Activist Post perspective of this latest round of war making, please read Eric Blair's article. 

© AFP Jim Watson

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The international assault on Libya has shown Barack Obama to be a cautious presidential warrior who has reframed US rules for war abroad after absorbing the painful lessons of Iraq.

Though he escalated the Afghan conflict, one of two wars he inherited, the Libyan action is the first military adventure Obama has actually launched and reveals key aspects of his philosophy as commander in chief.
The president's preference for avoiding overseas entanglements led him to anchor his political rise on opposition to "dumb" wars.

He was against the Iraq invasion launched by his Republican predecessor George W. Bush in 2003 -- notably eight years to the day before Saturday's US-led salvo of 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya.

In office meanwhile, his quest to get troops home from resource-draining wars in Iraq and eventually Afghanistan is a bedrock theme of his presidency.

In a speech to Americans on Saturday while on a visit to Brazil, Obama laid down the conditions for US involvement in the effort to protect civilians and halt Moamer Kadhafi's brutal advance on rebels in Libya.

"I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice, and it's not a choice that I make lightly," Obama said, explaining why, despite his caution, the United States should act.

The comments followed a revealing speech to Americans on Friday, which again shed light on Obama's criteria for using force.

He made clear that though the United States wants Kadhafi gone, the goal of the action is not regime change, the concept favored by neo-conservatives after the September 11 attacks in 2001, which led the country into Iraq.

Obama, who obtained a UN mandate for the Libyan assault, also stated that all action must be multilateral, with clear legal backing, and that no US ground troops will be deployed in a third foreign war, in a sign of wariness for more costly US entanglements abroad.

"American leadership is essential, but that does mean acting alone. It means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together," Obama said, repeatedly stressing the multilateral nature of the offensive.

His remarks formed a clear break from the unilateral approach to foreign policy used by Obama's predecessor over the war with Iraq and appeared to augur an era of American power being deployed in concert with foreign partners.

Obama's deliberate assembling of a coalition on Libya, his securing of support including from Arab states and the slow evolution of his thinking exposed him to attack from political foes and caused frustration abroad.

Conservatives especially pounded Obama for appearing to follow the French and British lead after calls for a no-fly zone, rather than being in the vanguard of an attempt to crush Kadhafi's fragile but resilient regime.

Jonah Goldberg of the National Review faulted Obama for "full spectrum passivity" on Libya, and other key issues.

"America should lead," Republican Senator John McCain said last week on CNN, faulting Obama for lagging behind, while Senator Joseph Lieberman complained the president had not done enough to "get tough" with Kadhafi.

There were also whispers in the European press of frustration in Paris and London, that until the administration accepted the need for military action in the last few days, Obama had been obstinately slow on the draw.

Many commentators have sought to define an Obama doctrine as Washington has struggled to keep up with the wave of change sweeping the Arab world this year.

Perhaps, Obama's approach to war abroad may be the closest he gets to defining his approach -- the definition of which he carefully laid out during his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, but which was never tested until now.

In an extended meditation in Oslo on war and peace, Obama distilled the lessons of a decade of American war to lay out a blueprint for conflict which he has been clearly following in the Libyan crisis.

"In a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone," Obama said.

The president also promised however that he would not hesitate to use force against a threat to the American people.

And he mused on another kind of justifiable war to protect civilians from a tyrant.

"I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war.

"Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace."

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Related Articles:

A license to parent your own children

We Need Honest Money (Gold)

Corrupt LA Judges Fall Like Dominoes

Protectionism of the Future vs. Protectionism of the Past

Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?

LinkWithin

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner