LiveWire

Maynard chimes in…

…and tries not to repeat the same talking points.

This is a quirky situation. Two points must be acknowledged:

1. Whatever the president does will be subject to political criticism. Rightly or wrongly, opponents will say Obama got it wrong.
2. In this case we find unusual divisions and alliances on the pro and con sides. There are liberals and conservatives that wanted us to stay out, while other liberals and conservatives wanted us to get in earlier. Some look at the rebels and see freedom fighters; others see terrorists. Within the Obama administration, it seems that Obama and Secretary Gates wanted out, while Secretary Clinton pushed us in. So there’s no broad sense of a “conservative” or “liberal” position here.

In acknowledgement of the foregoing, I’m uncertain of my own advocacy. This isn’t like the budget deficit, where any fool can see the spending must stop; I lack that clarity with Libya. So I (Maynard) will let others argue the specifics of what we should or shouldn’t do. In forming an opinion, I’m mostly interested in the thoughts of people that have a good track record in addressing this sort of situation. For example, has Gen. McChrystal or Gen. Petraeus weighed in? Yes, and (dare I say it?) John McCain.

But the framework of Obama’s decision-making process may be a bigger issue than the decision itself. That’s what’s really on my mind.

Remember when Bush went into Iraq? Granted, Iraq was a vastly bigger commitment than Libya. (Although when you start these things, you’re never quite sure exactly how big they’re going to be. That’s why you might end up prematurely announcing “Mission accomplished.”) But think about what Bush did prior to engaging the military. He had to get Congress on board. As his next priority, it was also Bush’s goal to achieve as broad an international coalition as possible. He leaned on the U.N. and allies. But cooperation was limited. In the end, Bush got Congress but not the U.N. As far as he was concerned, that was enough.

In that sense, Obama is the anti-Bush (or maybe I should say the anti-American). Obama’s top priority was to pursue a U.N. stamp of approval. And an okay from the Arab League. Plus leadership from France. Then we go to war. And finally, as an afterthought, he’s got to deal with the American people and their representatives. (Peggy Noonan (a Reagan speechwriter in her day) has posted posted this article about the speech Obama should have given.)

There are situations where a president must act quickly and decisively. In war, you can’t call a timeout. But this isn’t that sort of scenario. America moved slowly — which was of concern to those who argued that quick action was essential. But the slow movement wasn’t for the sake of addressing the American people. The delay was (aside from Obama’s presumed hesitation to go in at all) to allow an international coalition to coalesce without American leadership.

So, as with Obamacare, the American people are out of the loop. We’re again slapped in the face with Obama’s attitude that daddy knows best. You’ll recall how the “Bush lied us into war” meme was thrown at us by the sullen opposition unsatisfied by the arguments Bush made to the American people. I guess you can’t say that Obama lied us into war, in that he didn’t think we, or Congress, were worth consulting. (Although now that he’s finally addressed us, it’s been pointed out that that Obama’s justifications don’t fit the facts. If he’d made this speech earlier, I guess we could have said Obama lied us into war.)

That’s the attitude of our president. You’ll take it and like it. In Obama’s America, the people serve the State, and the State serves the United Nations. Which is backwards from the way the Constitution defined the nation. We are setting dangerous precedents; precedents our nation will come to regret when we realize we’ve defined a new norm. Does anyone care?