Foreign Policy

The first anti-American demonstrations have already taken place in Pakistan, in the city of Quetta, which might have sheltered al Qaeda leaders in the past.

What's next for U.S.-Pakistani relations after the daring U.S. raid deep inside Pakistan by Navy SEALs? Anti-American sentiment has long been running high in Pakistan over the drone attacks along the border with Afghanistan and is now gaining traction in urban society. Pakistan’s charismatic opposition leader, Imran Khan, a cricketer-turned-politician, has been stirring things up in recent days, warning that if the Predator attacks continue, Pakistanis would block NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

President Obama was gracious toward President Bush and President Clinton in his comments about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and he was right to do so.

So much of our politics has become a useless Kabuki dance where everyone takes predictable, predetermined positions in a ritual that puts most normal Americans to sleep. Let me part from the Kabuki here.

President Bush made one major mistake. He became so fixated about the Iraq war that he took his eye off the bin Laden ball. This led to bin Laden's escape at Tora Bora and diverted resources from the killing of bin Laden toward the Iraq war, over the private objection of many military commanders who advised otherwise.

The Senate needs answers from Gen. David Petraeus and Leon Panetta on Iran. With all the international focus on the Arab spring, what has escaped attention is the power struggle going on inside Iran between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his erstwhile protector, the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Right now it looks like Khamenei is circling the wagons. He has slapped down Ahmadinejad, who showed signs of wanting to groom his chief of staff to succeed him as president. In the most obvious sign of displeasure, Khamenei overruled Ahmadinejad, who had sought the resignation of the intelligence chief, Heydar Moslehi. Ahmadinejad’s response was to disappear from public view and in the past week not to show up to chair two Cabinet meetings.

My recent harshness about the president comes because this is a bit of an “own goal.” We did not have to get involved. An Arab dictator is oppressing his people — that is hardly news and, unless our interests are directly involved, not our issue. Also, given the perilous state of our finances and our already full military plate, it is simply not prudent to indulge in superfluous actions. But, there I go again … once I get started on any logic train thinking about this I find myself banging the keyboard and crying out loud in frustration.

What responsibility do America and the rest of the Western powers bear for protecting the rights and lives of people whose oppressive governments we supported and empowered? Do we face a moral responsibility to intervene? What about the real practical financial limits we face as a nation swimming in immense debt and high unemployment?
 
Clearly we cannot afford to be the world’s policeman, or the savior of all the world’s people. But are there long-term interests in terms of opening up these societies, in terms of securing a more righteous place in the emerging order, that it makes sense to invest in them at this time? And even if we agree that we bear some responsibility and interest, what should our response and action consist of?

As rebel fighters flee under fire from a key town in eastern Libya, it’s now apparent that the Obama administration will not forcefully remove Gadhafi from power. Whew. Guess who’s resting easy in Tripoli! Sure, the Obama administration wants the tyrant tossed. Why else would U.S. warplanes be pounding his military? But dropping a hint and showing him the door are two different things. While allied forces convening in London today insist Gadhafi must go, they are clueless as to how they can achieve this end goal.

Hello out there?

You may not agree with him, but you must admit: President Obama made the case for American intervention in Libya strongly and clearly.

He told us why he authorized the use of military force, at the request of the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council: to stop the slaughter of the Libyan people by Gadhafi’s forces.

He reported our success so far in stopping Gadhafi in his tracks and turning all operations over the NATO. The U.S. will now continue our involvement only in a supporting role.

And he spelled out our ultimate goal: to continue diplomatic and financial pressure on Gadhafi until he is forced out of power — without using the U.S. military to achieve regime change.

President Obama had a Bush moment last night. But I’m not talking about George W. Bush. I’m referring to his father. Obama’s explanation of why he won’t back the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi under a U.N. resolution was all about the limits of war by committee — the same constraints that prevented the military coalition put together by George H.W. Bush from going all the way to Baghdad in 1991.

It is often said that G.W. Bush decided to topple Saddam Hussein to make up for his father’s “failure" to overthrow the Iraqi dictator in the first Gulf War. In his speech last night, Obama pointed out that regime change in Iraq “took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. Read more...

Poor Newt Gingrich. Hopefully he’s out of traction now and fully recovered from the self-inflicted whiplash stemming from his conflicting views of what the U.S. military role should be in Libya. It sure was spectacular to see Newt, as he vies for his party’s nomination to challenge the president, twisted in knots as he tried to take both sides of the debate.

You see, Newt was for the U.S. involvement in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya before he was against it.

Newt’s embarrassing contortions exposed the fallacy of the right’s obscene obsession with undermining the president and hoping for his (and the country’s) failure at every turn. It demonstrated the shortcomings of the “Agenda of No” practiced by Newt and his Newtonian lemmings in Congress. And it revealed that the Republican’s “no reason” policy on Libya — meaning it isn’t based in reason — ultimately will fail as the president continues to outline his vision and his authority.

Even if this military conflict does not technically require congressional approval, is it not in the president’s interest to get political cover from Congress?

Whether you agree or disagree with the wisdom of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush got near-unanimous congressional approval before he embarked on those campaigns. During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Sen. Obama stated that America should only go to war with congressional approval.

Has President Obama lost touch with the people who put him into power? His ardent Muslim supporter, Minister Louis Farrakhan, said of Obama recently, “Who the hell do you think you are,” trying to remove Gadhafi from power? Perhaps Lord Acton’s axiom, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” once again proves to be true. Or perhaps the president thinks his allegiance to the international community is greater than his allegiance to the American people and the U.S. Constitution.