Gadhafi Is the Best
When Barack Obama takes a look at Libya, he sees trouble, and he sees another chance for Somalia. And Somalia is not a country — it’s chaos.
If it seemed to you that the Obama administration has had more difficulties with Libya than with Egypt, and if it seemed to you that there is a lack of desire supplementing the automatic talk about the revolution taking place in Tripoli — then, you’re probably right. It’s not confusion, and it’s not fatigue — because how many revolutions could one possibly digest in one month? The Obama administration was horrified, of course, just like everybody else, by Moammar Gadhafi’s brutal massacre of his countrymen. It protested, of course, just like everybody else, in the face of the paralyzing bloodbath of the flimsy regime.
But the great enthusiasm of the revolution in Libya and the great joy about one more Arab regime that joined the democratic wave were difficult to be found in the government corridors of Washington. Until the point that someone made a joke at the expense of the American officials, commenting that they were in quite a pickle with Netahnyahu’s Israel when Mubarak fell. It came to light that concern could be contagious. It came to light that the Americans too are capable of calculating the risk opposite chance in a conservative approach.
Two factors played a part in the cold tone accompanying the chatter about the portents of Gadhafi’s collapse: oil prices and the unique style of the Libyan state. Oil — that’s clear. The prices are already going up, exactly what Obama doesn’t need when the economy shows signs of recovery. This is the last thing he needs: that the price for oil increases and costs him the chance of re-election. Not a far-fetched scenario. But this doesn’t mean that Obama is a complete cynic. If Libya had a chance to become a democracy, perhaps he would be ready to pay the high price in oil. Yet only because his people are telling him it doesn’t have a chance, Obama is less enthusiastic.
“Urgent Action, Not Just Improved Rhetoric”
When he took a look at Tunisia, he saw a chance of an almost liberal Arab democracy. When he took a look at Egypt, he identified a chance of a democracy a la Turkey — not trouble-free, not drawback-free, but nonetheless an exciting improvement compared to the previous state of affairs. But when Obama takes a look at Libya, he sees troubles and he sees a chance for another Somalia. And in Somalia — for anyone who might have forgotten — four Americans were murdered this week by pirates. Somalia is not a country — it’s chaos.
One way or another, there is a great temptation to watch the Arab surge of coups from a bird's-eye view and to identify the common denominator, the trend or the fashion. The American administration, which is claiming a world leadership, must be looking at the world in this way; however, sometimes it must also focus its view on details. Tunisia is not Egypt, which is not Libya, which is not Lebanon, which is not Syria. For some of them, revolution will bring a blessing. For others, it may inflict disaster.
And indeed, the former deputy defense secretary in the George Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, demanded this week that Obama present a more moral position, that he undertake “urgent action, not just improved rhetoric.” Nevertheless, it was the Bush administration that improved the United States’ relations with Libya beyond recognition, and it was the Bush administration that removed it from the list of countries supporting terrorism. It was Bush himself as the first American president ever to hold a phone conversation with Moammar Gadhafi. In any case, if Obama is guilty of deriving his Libyan policy from a cold cost-benefit calculation, he’s not the only guilty one.
Far From Isolationism. But Still.
Ultra-conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh apparently ran out of routine insults, or maybe he decided that daily surveillance of one more crashing Arab regime and then another and another one may bore his big audience to the point of their desertion to some other radio station. Therefore, he has surprised them at the beginning of the week with an attack on the president’s spouse, Michelle Obama.
What was her sin? Well, as it turns out, she's fat. That is, not explicitly “fat,” but he hinted at it. "I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue,” claimed Limbaugh. This is his way of paying Mrs. Obama back for her effort to promote programs preventing obesity in American children, an attempt perceived by the American right as yet more proof of the tendency of the Obama administration to become over-involved in the lives of its citizens.
Limbaugh doesn't want Washington officials telling him or his kids what to eat. Neither does Sarah Palin, who attacked Michelle Obama because she is “telling us she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families, in what we should eat.” In the tea party ambiance sweeping across a large sector of America, there is no room for the administration’s sermons, no room for its enhanced involvement in the people’s lives. For isn’t this an interference that could also have a price tag at the end? For example, raising the tax on fattening foods in order to cover the health expenses originating from them? Or on sodas containing a lot of sugar — just like it was done in the case of cigarettes. Either way, the purism of the tea party could at times qualify for the rank of absurd. But in regards to Israel, it’s especially interesting to follow it in the possible context of American foreign policy. The “don’t you tell me what to do” attitude sometimes turns into “don’t you tell anyone what to do.”
A new Gallup survey this week exposed that in the realm of foreign policy, a particularly interesting change has been recorded among Republican voters. It’s true that the majority of Americans still support the continuation of an active engagement of the United States in the world. Most Americans are far from isolationism. And yet the graphs point to the consistent and steady decrease in the number of United States citizens — Republicans, Democrats and independents — taking an interest in the role of the “world leader.” And, in particular, it’s interesting to see what’s going on in the right wing: Three years ago, the percentage of Republicans supporting significant involvement was more than 85 percent. Today, it’s only 68 percent. Never ever (since the start of the measurement) has the percentage of Republicans supporting the mission of “American leadership in world affairs” been so low.
If it seemed to you that the Obama administration has had more difficulties with Libya than with Egypt, and if it seemed to you that there is a lack of desire supplementing the automatic talk about the revolution taking place in Tripoli — then, you’re probably right. It’s not confusion, and it’s not fatigue — because how many revolutions could one possibly digest in one month? The Obama administration was horrified, of course, just like everybody else, by Moammar Gadhafi’s brutal massacre of his countrymen. It protested, of course, just like everybody else, in the face of the paralyzing bloodbath of the flimsy regime.
But the great enthusiasm of the revolution in Libya and the great joy about one more Arab regime that joined the democratic wave were difficult to be found in the government corridors of Washington. Until the point that someone made a joke at the expense of the American officials, commenting that they were in quite a pickle with Netahnyahu’s Israel when Mubarak fell. It came to light that concern could be contagious. It came to light that the Americans too are capable of calculating the risk opposite chance in a conservative approach.
Two factors played a part in the cold tone accompanying the chatter about the portents of Gadhafi’s collapse: oil prices and the unique style of the Libyan state. Oil — that’s clear. The prices are already going up, exactly what Obama doesn’t need when the economy shows signs of recovery. This is the last thing he needs: that the price for oil increases and costs him the chance of re-election. Not a far-fetched scenario. But this doesn’t mean that Obama is a complete cynic. If Libya had a chance to become a democracy, perhaps he would be ready to pay the high price in oil. Yet only because his people are telling him it doesn’t have a chance, Obama is less enthusiastic.
“Urgent Action, Not Just Improved Rhetoric”
When he took a look at Tunisia, he saw a chance of an almost liberal Arab democracy. When he took a look at Egypt, he identified a chance of a democracy a la Turkey — not trouble-free, not drawback-free, but nonetheless an exciting improvement compared to the previous state of affairs. But when Obama takes a look at Libya, he sees troubles and he sees a chance for another Somalia. And in Somalia — for anyone who might have forgotten — four Americans were murdered this week by pirates. Somalia is not a country — it’s chaos.
One way or another, there is a great temptation to watch the Arab surge of coups from a bird's-eye view and to identify the common denominator, the trend or the fashion. The American administration, which is claiming a world leadership, must be looking at the world in this way; however, sometimes it must also focus its view on details. Tunisia is not Egypt, which is not Libya, which is not Lebanon, which is not Syria. For some of them, revolution will bring a blessing. For others, it may inflict disaster.
And indeed, the former deputy defense secretary in the George Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz, demanded this week that Obama present a more moral position, that he undertake “urgent action, not just improved rhetoric.” Nevertheless, it was the Bush administration that improved the United States’ relations with Libya beyond recognition, and it was the Bush administration that removed it from the list of countries supporting terrorism. It was Bush himself as the first American president ever to hold a phone conversation with Moammar Gadhafi. In any case, if Obama is guilty of deriving his Libyan policy from a cold cost-benefit calculation, he’s not the only guilty one.
Far From Isolationism. But Still.
Ultra-conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh apparently ran out of routine insults, or maybe he decided that daily surveillance of one more crashing Arab regime and then another and another one may bore his big audience to the point of their desertion to some other radio station. Therefore, he has surprised them at the beginning of the week with an attack on the president’s spouse, Michelle Obama.
What was her sin? Well, as it turns out, she's fat. That is, not explicitly “fat,” but he hinted at it. "I'm trying to say that our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue,” claimed Limbaugh. This is his way of paying Mrs. Obama back for her effort to promote programs preventing obesity in American children, an attempt perceived by the American right as yet more proof of the tendency of the Obama administration to become over-involved in the lives of its citizens.
Limbaugh doesn't want Washington officials telling him or his kids what to eat. Neither does Sarah Palin, who attacked Michelle Obama because she is “telling us she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families, in what we should eat.” In the tea party ambiance sweeping across a large sector of America, there is no room for the administration’s sermons, no room for its enhanced involvement in the people’s lives. For isn’t this an interference that could also have a price tag at the end? For example, raising the tax on fattening foods in order to cover the health expenses originating from them? Or on sodas containing a lot of sugar — just like it was done in the case of cigarettes. Either way, the purism of the tea party could at times qualify for the rank of absurd. But in regards to Israel, it’s especially interesting to follow it in the possible context of American foreign policy. The “don’t you tell me what to do” attitude sometimes turns into “don’t you tell anyone what to do.”
A new Gallup survey this week exposed that in the realm of foreign policy, a particularly interesting change has been recorded among Republican voters. It’s true that the majority of Americans still support the continuation of an active engagement of the United States in the world. Most Americans are far from isolationism. And yet the graphs point to the consistent and steady decrease in the number of United States citizens — Republicans, Democrats and independents — taking an interest in the role of the “world leader.” And, in particular, it’s interesting to see what’s going on in the right wing: Three years ago, the percentage of Republicans supporting significant involvement was more than 85 percent. Today, it’s only 68 percent. Never ever (since the start of the measurement) has the percentage of Republicans supporting the mission of “American leadership in world affairs” been so low.
Previous article![]( "The Obama Trappist Monastery")
