The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
News of the Tautological
“Bottled Water Industry Supports World Water Day”–headline, International Bottled Water Association press release, March 22
Who’s in Charge Here?
The U.N.-authorized Libya operation has made “good progress” militarily, reports the German magazine Der Spiegel. “But that, it seems, was the easy part.” Uh-oh:
Far more difficult are the questions of who should now lead the mission and what the operation’s ultimate objectives should be.
The US government, wary of getting stuck in another war in a Muslim country, would like to hand control of the mission over to NATO, but the alliance is divided. At a meeting on Monday, NATO ambassadors failed to agree on whether the alliance should take control of the mission. NATO involvement would require approval by all 28 members.
France has opposed handing control to NATO because of Arab skepticism about the alliance, which is perceived as being dominated by the US. . . . Turkey, an alliance member which sees itself as a bridge to the Muslim world, is opposing NATO control of the operation. . . . Britain and Italy want the alliance to be in charge of the operation, however.
London’s Daily Mail reports that the Germans–whose diplomats helped draft the U.N. resolution authorizing the operation, then refused to vote for it because it was too strong–are withdrawing assets from the Mediterranean “after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.”
Here in America, meanwhile, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals. Actually, “mixed” doesn’t quite do it justice. It’s more like pureed, chopped or whipped signals. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder told a news conference: “I think that, you know, Gadhafi’s presence, continued presence in Libya is something that has got to end, given the fact that he’s lost all legitimacy with his people.”
We’re still waiting for the interior secretary to weigh in, but as long as the attorney general is making pronouncements about foreign-policy strategy, we’re glad at least that he’s clear. Gadhafi must go!
Or must he? President Obama, in a CNN interview yesterday, observed that “Gadhafi may try to hunker down and wait it out even in the face of a no-fly zone, even though his forces have been degraded.” Which is true enough as an analytical matter, but when we first read the quote, with no further context, we worried that it was a show of weakness. Were we right? Here’s what the president said next:
But keep in mind that we don’t just have military tools at our disposal in terms of accomplishing Gadhafi’s leaving. We put in place strong international sanctions. We’ve frozen his assets. We will continue to apply a whole range of pressure on him.
This is, to say the least, an unconventional approach. It’s like holding a gun to a criminal’s head and telling him you’re not going to shoot, but if he doesn’t cooperate, he may be subject to a stiff fine. It’s so counterintuitive that one wonders if it is some sort of brilliant reverse-psychology ploy.
David Rothkopf of Foreign Policy magazine quotes this clarification of the administration’s policy from White House speechwriter Ben Rhodes:
Given the fact that there has been some reporting off of a quote from the gaggle, the quote that says “they underscored their shared commitment of helping provide the people of Libya the opportunity to transform their country by installing a system of government that is democratic and responsive to the will of the people,” we’re clarifying, as we’ve said repeatedly, that the effort of our military operation is not regime change, that as we actually say in this READOUT, it’s the Libyan people who are going to make their determinations about the future. We support their aspirations, their democratic aspirations, and have stated that Gaddafi should go because he’s lost their confidence.
And here’s more Obama from CNN.com:
“Our hope is that the first thing that happens once we clear this space is that the rebels start discussing how they’re able to organize themselves, how they articulate their aspirations for the Libyan people,” Obama said. . . . In particular, Obama said he hoped that the Libyan people decide it was time for a change that ends up sweeping Gadhafi from power.
So the U.S. objective is to get Libyans talking? That’s so typical of Obama, we have to conclude he’s just being himself. So much for the brilliant reverse-psychology fake-out theory.
On the other hand, let’s make three quick points in Obama’s favor. First, there may be an upside to his languid approach to foreign policy. America should not grovel to other governments to let it act in their interests, as John “Global Test” Kerry urged back in 2004. But Obama isn’t doing that. He has struck a pose of such indifference that France and the Arab League ended up begging the U.S. to show some leadership. In geostrategic terms this may not be an improvement over the activist early Bush years, but it’s satisfying to see these self-involved “allies” put in their place.
Second, Politico reports that “some foreign leaders are asking that the Nobel Committee take back the peace prize it awarded Obama in 2009.” Somebody–not clear if it was a foreign leader or just a follower–said on Twitter: “Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.” How many cruise missiles did Rigoberta Menchu, Jody Williams or even Yasser Arafat even have?
Third, albeit unrelated to Libya, Politico reports that a Chilean reporter asked Obama to apologize for long-ago U.S. support of Augusto Pinochet, the American-backed military dictator who ruled brutally but did save his country from communism. Obama’s response:
“I think it’s very important for all of us to know our history,” Obama said during a news conference with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera. “And obviously the history of relations between the United States and Latin America have at times been extremely rocky and have at times been difficult.”
“I think it’s important, though, for us, even as we understand our history and gain clarity about our history, that we’re not trapped by our history,” Obama said, while noting that United States has supported democratic reform in Chile for two decades. “So, I can’t speak to all of the policies of the past. I can speak certainly to the policies of the present and the future.”
Perfect. No bow, no grovel, just a polite but firm rebuff. Who says Obama hasn’t grown in office?
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for thef “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.”
