Republican leadership has universally criticized the president for tardiness in his decision to intervene in Libya and in his subsequent inability to define America's specific mission.
Both failures (they are certainly failures) go hand-in-hand and find their genesis in a single cause: the president does not want to do this.
To describe him as passive before his decision would be technically true (and characteristic of him as chief executive), but only thus. He was active -- actively going out of his way to wrap his arms around American power and death-grip it from ever being used to influence the course of events. It was only after lesser powers such as the French and British, followed by the Arab League, had called for intervention before America stood to be the only relevant actor refusing to act.
The president's continued distaste for American participation is manifesting itself still. Ostentatiously unwilling to do what he has finally done, the president has done the bare minimum a commander-in-chief authorizing the use of force can do. Orders were given, a statement was made to the American people -- and then nothing. No subsequent declarations of the ultimate mission or, more specifically, whether coalition forces are simply trying to hem Qaddafi in or actually influence his ouster.
All anyone has really been given are assertions that America is going to "shape the battlefield" and then step back and let other components of the coalition take the lead.
President Obama did not want to be here in the first place and now that he is here he is leaving the impression that he is looking to get America out just as soon as it was in.
No comments:
Post a Comment