So it turns out that French fries are really freedom fries after all.
From the moment Moammar Gaddafi started his vicious military campaign against his people, French President Nicholas Sarkozy spoke of confronting the Libyan madman. While President Obama thought about what to do, Sarkozy met with members of the Libyan opposition at the Elysee Palace on March 10 to support an overthrow of the Libyan leader. Soon thereafter, France became the first country to formally recognize the Libyan opposition group "The Interim Transitional National Council."
Sarkozy's government started planning for a No Fly Zone over Libya before the thought of a UN resolution or NATO endorsement was pushed upon the world stage.
While the French were leading the world to confront Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi's brutal air and ground attacks, the indecisive Obama administration was "weighing their options and discussing the issue" as one official said.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were surprised when British Prime Minister David Cameron endorsed Sarkozy's No Fly Zone on March 11. And the White House had still not decided what to do about Libya when the Arab League endorsed the idea on March 12.
America's sidelined spectator status during a developing foreign policy crisis highlighted Obama's strategy to make the United States equal among many and not unique within the international community. Obama blinked and democracy seekers around the world have taken note of America's timidity. The U.S. inaction in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia will surely encourage despots and may even send the unfortunate message to human rights activists that America will not support their bravery.
Sarkozy and the Arab League took control of the world stage after watching the indecisive Obama administration hem and haw over what to do about a madman shelling his people. Obama met with his national security team multiple times only to disclose more meetings and deliberation. Sarkozy had promised to formally establish diplomatic relations by exchanging ambassadors between Paris and Benghazi before Obama decided what to do. And Britain's Cameron seemingly left the United States out of his planning when he proclaimed, "It's important that the countries of Europe show political will, show ambition and show unity in being clear that Col. Gaddafi must go. His regime is illegitimate." World leaders were reading the clues coming from Washington and deciding to act without the U.S.
By the time Obama decided to seek support from the United Nations, our Ambassador Susan Rice was left on the sidelines because the French, British and Arab League had already written a draft resolution. When the votes were finally called in the Security Council, Susan Rice and the Obama team had failed to convince India, Germany and Brazil to support the No Fly Zone Resolution. So much for an administration that had promised to lead the world.
"The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday (March 12)," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on March 16. "That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members." But the Obama team had still not acted a full week after the Arab League statement. State Department officials say Hillary Clinton was pushing President Obama to do something but was being told to slow down. "S was frustrated and embarrassed" by the lack of U.S. action, one official told me using the lingo S for Secretary of State.
While some Obama supporters defend the president's delay by saying that a president must "take their time and be deliberate" about military decision making of this magnitude, it was an uneasy President Obama that was left to read a teleprompter statement voicing support for the Libyan opposition a full 7 days after the Arab League had done it. Unlike Obama's base of support in the U.S., the French centre-left opposition is largely supportive of Sarkozy's leadership on Libya. Jake Tapper of ABC News tweeted that protesters were already gathering at the White House to demand that Obama stop any U.S. military involvement in Libya.
Obama's indecisiveness and lack of resolve infuriated the right and his decision to follow the Europeans and the Arab League into a No Fly Zone has angered the left. The president and his team must decide if they will retreat in the face of our international obligations or live up to his promise that "The U.S. will not sit idly by". The simple fact is that the U.S. did sit idly by while a madman attacked his people with military aircraft. Obama either is strategically withdrawing America from the world stage or crippled with indecision. Vacillation and fear are terrible messages to send to our enemies.
Follow Richard Grenell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/richardgrenell
Let other countries step up to the plate for once.
And what is up with his lame title?
"Longest serving U.S. Spokesman in the history of the United Nations"
He is just a spokesman, meaning they watch UN stuff and speak about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
ah, feel the love ...
www.keyboardpolitics.com
It isn't US timidity. It is US thoughtfulness. Something that was criminally lacking during the Bush years. Furthermore, this thoughtfulness rather than encouraging despots will encourage the demonstrators. Why is this so? Because unlike the Bush years this thoughtfulness is causing doubts in the minds of the tyrants - who depend upon the US for their backing. Something that Bush would have done reflexively, without thinking about how he could massage the inevitable revolutions that are taking place in many of the Arab nations.
Only an egomaniac or a crass political opportunist would think that America has to be in the vanguard of every single diplomatic effort that it partakes in. Sometimes it is ok to follow, a bit. Just as long as you are not too late to the party.
He doesn't seem able to make decisions he isn't pushed into, not even decisions to support policies, beliefs, and principles he has espoused strongly and publicly.
I doubt we should be involved in Libya, but if we were going to get involved, we should have been in on the ground floor, not following meekly behind, doing what we are told by those who had the initiative to act first. In spite of our greater contribution, we are now following the plans and directives of foreign leaders who were capable of making decisions.
Whether those decisions prove good or bad, they don't seem rash or impetuous. They knew what they were doing. Just because they didn't need forever and a day to decide doesn't mean that they were playing cowboy, a la GW.
We should either take action as a partner with others, within reasonable time-frames, after expeditiously considering all aspects, consulting appropriate parties, and weighing possible ramifications and consequences - or stay out.
We shouldn't dawdle until the leaders of other countries decide what action to take and draft us. Now, however it all comes out in the end, America is part of it, even if we drop out tomorrow.
America is not (yet) doing what it is told to do. That may come in the next 50 years as the power of empire ebbs away. Nor is America following plans and directives of foreign leaders. Those are simplistic overstatements perhaps born from your frustration.
I will say that is was frustrating to see the now participating nations waste time while Ghadaffi advanced on Benghazi. And in this case it would have been better to (militarily) support the rebels sooner than was achieved.
But I also think that it was of greater importance to show the world that the America respects international organizations - such as the Arab League and the UN, enough to seek their approval before acting. Something that was not done under Bush, to the peril of the nation.
Doing so strengthens such multi-national organizations. If over time such strengthening of these organizations becomes cumulative and such groups become strong enough then they may be able to live up to their promise. Namely that of an force capable of regulating/eliminating the need for nations to settle their disputes on the battlefield. That is a goal worthy of supporting, if taking your time can help foster it.
I think not. This is the Libyan rebels' fight, not ours. Just like the fight in Tunisia was not ours, the fight in Egypt was not ours, the fight in Bahrain is not ours, the fight in Iraq, oh...wait...
I am glad that President Obama waited until there was an international concensus before acting. If only our previous President had been as prudent.