President Obama's critics are on the verge of witnessing a third major Obama success in the Arab world in 2011.
First, longtime Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak was deposed after Obama refused to support him against the Egyptian people at the moment of truth. Second, Osama bin Laden, America's archenemy #1, was killed by Navy SEALS on direct orders from Obama in a risky cross-border raid into Pakistan. And now, Muammar Gaddafi -- a man whose presence on the international stage has mocked any reasonable definition of sanity for more than four decades -- is about to be knocked out of power by an international coalition in which Obama ensured that the U.S. played a leading team role.
It's time for Obama's neoconservative critics to acknowledge his leadership success on foreign policy, especially on Libya.
Why? Because Obama has done what his most ardent foreign policy critics have failed to do: he has ushered in a new era in the Arab world by supporting its organic democracy movements while also aggressively pursuing terrorists. This is foreign policy leadership, Obama style, and it works for American national security.
Why? Because unlike his harshest critics, Obama actually understands that you don't promote democracy by invading other countries. The Libyan rebel movement is only six months old, and Obama led an international coalition, with the direct support of the Arab League and the United Nations, to protect Libyan civilians. He then moved the policy forward by keeping up the military pressure on Gaddafi by sending in drones and supporting airstrikes to degrade the Libyan military, all the while patiently ensuring that the Libyan rebel movement was given the diplomatic support it needed to begin to create its own institutions.
Why? Because the United States accomplished these successes and advanced our countries' interests without either losing one American life or getting entangled in another Middle Eastern quagmire.
This is what infuriates Obama's neoconservative critics and prevents them from acknowledging his effectiveness. Not only did they fail to achieve the level of success in the Arab world that Obama has, but they also witnessed Obama triumphs on issues that they held dear -- democracy in the Arab world and counterterrorism -- for decades.
Obama has succeeded where the neoconservatives have failed, and it drives them crazy.
What Obama's neoconservative critics on Libya also failed to understand is that Obama's leadership on Libya was aggressive, but unlike theirs, which called for American boots on the ground, was smart, realistic, and patient. A touch of humility and an understanding of the proper usage of American power is what is making this policy work and now the Libyan rebels, when finished, will own their victory.
There will certainly be tough days ahead for Libya; the dust is not yet settled on this drama. But it is clear that the rebels are in charge, that we are not stuck in a quagmire, and that the Arab revolutions will continue -- all with the U.S. as an ally.
This is true leadership, Obama style, and it's time for his critics to acknowledge his -- and our -- success.
This piece originally appeared in Politico's "The Arena" page.
Follow Joel Rubin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoelMartinRubin
Chris Weigant: Obama's Libya Strategy Proves His Critics Wrong
Rabah Ghezali: Building A Post-Gaddafi Libya
POLL: Do you support the rebels in Libya?
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/2009500
1) By strategically withdrawing US support from Mubarak when he did, and publicly backing the resistance instead, Obama's actions created the political and diplomatic momentum and provided the catalyst by which Egypt's "Arab spring" moment became possible - instead of being squashed into oblivion, as could have occurred otherwise.
2) By ordering US leadership at the outset of the international coalition that intervened in Libya, Obama literally saved that revolution - at a time when Qadaffi's forces were literally within hours of taking Bengazi...and very likely preparing to slaughter practically every person they suspected of rebel sympathies. Tens of thousands of Libyan rebels who are now in process of taking Tripoli have President Obama to thank for their very lives. If not for him, most - or all - of them would have already been dead for months now.
Does that clear things up for you?
I am TRULY unclear if there's ANY good "party" in Libya - OR - if there's a majority that supports either side... but, we didn't have a current problem with Qadaffi so I don't know WHY THE HELL I have to care which crazy is killing which other crazy.
Maybe we can just spend out money, time and resources AT HOME !!
PS. I was against Iraq too from the VERY beginning ... didn't care what Saddam was doing to the Shi'a OR to the Kurds...
just like I didn't CARE what the Kurds were doing to the Turks ... the Turks to the Kurds ... or the Shi'a to the Sunni ...
cause the USA is not the world's policeman !!!!
it could turn out to be a good thing - bravO (Operal loud!) Obama - or turn into an Algeria, or some sort of theocratic crazies running the place...
why the hell get involved IF Qaddafi wasn't bothering us ? Aren't we (shouldn't we) be a little sick of wars ?
Assuming that it was Americas "leadership" which now removed Gaddffi, is equally sanctimonious.
Anointing the USA/Obama as the force which is bringing freedom to the mid east, is arrogance and hubris at its best.
If America was really serious about true freedom in the mid east, then why is americas mouth shut with regard to its favourite tyrants in Saudi Arabia and Bhairain? Why is America unable to bring itself to rein in Israels land grab and get it to commit to ending the occupation?
America would have been better of keeping its mouth shut. Double standards are immensely damaging
If Obama had wanted to play it safe and maintain the status quo that you allege, he would never have stuck his neck out over Libya: many, many potential downsides...maybe only one or two legitimate upsides. While there are assuredly American strategic interests at stake there, in the grand scheme of things, in the main Libya falls lopsidedly over to one side of the intervention continuum: the humanitarian mission side, that is...
Iraq and Afghanistan didn't look like quagmires 90 days in either. They looked like overwhelming successes. It took us two weeks to do the Afghans what the Soviets couldn't do in a decade. How long did it it take to depose Saddam?
I'm sure Vietnam didn't look like a quagmire when those first 50 "advisors" got off the plane.
So why should anyone listen to you?
When he succeeds, he takes full credit.
You should listen to me because I knew Obama was a disaster in 2008 and tried to warn my fellow progressives.
This President HAS proved don't be an ally of the U.S.. We failed to support the Egyptian government, an ally, when it needed supporting. The verdict is still out on whether Egypt will now become a democracy or something much worse than before. Israel will likely pay a heavy price for that instability if it goes wrong. I pray fervently that the President guessed right on that one because I have friends in Egypt.
Now Libya was certainly an enemy of the U.S. and our European allies. If the President had explained it as returning favors to France and others for their past support, I would have supported him. Instead, he tried to sell it as protecting civilians when those same civilians were burning others property, fighting when asked to disperse, and receiving support from people who are sworn to destroy the U.S. and Israel.
But if this IS the era of Might Make Right, then perhaps this President did okay. He did not follow the Constitution. He did not have the support of the majority of Americans. He did not support our Middle Eastern allies. Again, I salute his success. I question his motives and his methods.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23952628-might-is-right-has-become-the-obama-doctrine.do
Might is right has become the Obama doctrine
http://open.salon.com/blog/libbyliberalnyc/2011/03/30/obama_announces_hes_king_of_the_world
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
The US is a mess domestically, but who really cares on high? They are like addict parents lost to their own game. Morality is not on the table. Never was. Just something to be “used” to enter the global quagmires, the “humanitarian” hook. It is so disgustingly manipulative and dishonorable. The bait and switch to get the citizenry to raise their unhappy ostrich heads and nod in their Stockholm Syndrome stupor that the US right or wrong is always right. Right, Barack?
So many people in the Middle East want their “freedom.” Many incredibly, despite the horrors the US has perpetrated on them and their neighbors, think that we in the US are guaranteed these freedoms, which are now steadily being removed, and that the US deserves to be trusted. I suppose when you are desperate you trust blindly.
Soft fascism is hardening fast in America.
Simply unbelievable...