In the 2008 presidential election, candidate-Obama’s opponents’ worst fear was not government-run health care but his inexperience with military and foreign affairs, especially in light of two ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those fears have been realized with the recent US military engagement in Libya.
The American people typically support the Commander in Chief in times of war, yet questions are being raised about the implications of the attacks on Libya. What is the goal? Is this a humanitarian effort or a regime change mission? What is our specific role and what is the endgame? Instead of a clear and coherent policy from the administration we are told our attack on Libya is a “kinetic military action” run by a “political steering committee” in some foreign capital.
For many reasons the administration’s responses are troubling at best. In a time of battle, when has America ever obfuscated its military leadership as our servicemen and women are potentially put in harm’s way?
The word “kinetic” implies pertaining to motion, according to the Webster dictionary. The term is ironic because it could explain the administration’s policy of “going through the motions” but not providing the necessary leadership in this circumstance.
This unbearable lightness of being of the Obama presidency can also be seen in other public debates involving the federal budget, debt ceiling, and even in their response, or lack thereof, to other events taking place in the Middle East and North Africa currently.
The political commentator, Dick Morris, stated the other day that the lack of American leadership in Libya “shows what happens when you have a rookie in charge.” As his critics predicted, he is unqualified or at least inexperienced in these matters, as well as many of the officials he appointed in positions of national security.
Just the other day, the Deputy National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, was asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview, if the mission in Libya was regime change or not. McDonough avoided the question several times and at one point ended up giving two different answers responding affirmatively and then negatively to Blitzer’s question.
After the relative peacetime of the Cold War and the presidency of Bill Clinton, the bar has been lowered when it comes to the American public’s desired prerequisite of presidents having served in the military. There is no constitutional requirement that they previously serve in the military and historically speaking, it does not guarantee success as Commander in Chief. But prudent presidents whom do not have military experience usually recognize this and appoint experienced security advisors and/or give deference to military leaders in times of crises.
Ironically as well, this was John McCain’s strength going into the 2008 presidential election. McCain had largely been responsible for promoting the Iraq surge policy in congress, was a respected expert in military affairs, and was a decorated war veteran having also been a five-year POW.
When Americans select their president they ought to remember that rarely in human history do we have long-lasting peacetimes. America is still the world’s lone superpower and until otherwise will remain the target of enemies throughout the world. America’s position in the world will unfortunately involve us in conflicts from time to time and at a bare minimum, it’s the responsibility of our president to protect the American people and our interests abroad.
In times like these, it would be wise to invoke the “Powell Doctrine” of military engagement, named after former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The doctrine is a list of questions that should be answered in the affirmative before engaging in military activity. The administration should answer the following questions: 1.) Do we have a clear obtainable objective? 2.) Does America have a vested national security interest? 3.) Have the risks and costs been fully analyzed? 4.) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Without a coherent policy, how do we determine whether or not to help or not help other countries who are in the process of overthrowing their own dictators, such as Syria and Iran? No doubt Muammar Gaddafi is a tyrant who should stop terrorizing his people and be held accountable for his role in the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing – both killing American citizens.
While events are in motion, the situation in Libya is not a foregone conclusion. There is still time to remedy this but the window of opportunity closes more and more each day. Instead of just going through the ‘kinetic’ motions of the presidency, President Obama needs to step up and provide the necessary leadership as a Commander in Chief should.
Christopher N. Malagisi is President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, Director of Political & New Media Training at The Leadership Institute, and a political science Adjunct Professor at American University (Classes: The Modern Conservative Movement in US Politics: 1945-Present and Campaigns & Political Activism).
