Free Markets, Free People

The “Obama Doctrine?

It sort of works out like this – if you’re Libya, look out but if you’re Iran or China, don’t worry about it.  Allahpundit explains:

Via Greg Hengler, it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ‘em die, then?

For instance, how about Syria?

At least 10 people have been killed and dozens wounded after Syrian police opened fire on people protesting against the deaths of anti-government demonstrators in Deraa, witnesses say.

Hundreds of youths from nearby villages were shot at when they tried to march into the centre of the southern city.

A Syrian human rights activist told the BBC that at least 37 had died.

Troops also reportedly shot at people attending the funerals of six people killed in a raid on a mosque overnight.

Why that sounds almost exactly like things that happened in Libya prior to the international coalition finally taking action.  Again, just as in Libya, we have “civilians” being killed by their government.

Time to apply the Obama Doctrine?   Is that crickets I hear?

If you think that I’m making this up – about the Obama Doctrine that is – here’s Andrea Mitchell to explain it to you:

 

So who gets the full Monty and what popular uprising gets ignored by the doctrine? We know Iran gets a free pass.  And apparently so does Syria.  Who else? 

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to The “Obama Doctrine?

  • There is a broader pattern here:

    Unions, corporate cronies, and other Democrat constituencies are getting waivers on ObamaCare.

    Syria, Iran, Yemen and Bahrain are getting waivers on ObamaDoc.

    Qaddafi should have donated to Obama’s campaign — he might have gotten a waiver if he’d ponied up some dough to get Our First Black President(TM) elected. Either that or he should have given Michelle a job as a $350,000 “community outreach coordinator”. 

    • I’ve read stuff saying he DID donate to the MEEEEsiah’s campaign.  He loves him some Barackah, we know that.  He’s one of the BHO surrogate daddies.
      Teh One is raising one-thousand-million dollars for his next campaign, which started about a year ago.  There WILL be Middle Eastern money in that kitty, too.

    • You folks are giving too much credit to Pres**ent Obama.
      This plain and simple is the Hiliary Doctrine

    • Speaking of waivers, New York might choke on their Weiner …

      Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.
      …“We in New York already have hospitals, we already employ doctors and we employ nurses. We have a lot of uninsured people. … [Setting up] the exchanges is the one piece of the puzzle that would be difficult for us to do,” he said. “I’m just looking internally to whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny.”

  • In all fairness, the same questions were leveled at Bush: “If we’re going to go in and kick Saddam’s a** because he’s a thug who supports terrorists and is suspected of having WMD, then why not Syria or Iran or (insert country here)?”

    The difference now, of course, is that we had over a decade of UN resolutions and occasional military action against Saddam, AND there was 9-11.  I’m still trying to figure out why The Dear Golfer pulled the trigger on Libya.  Honestly, the best explanation I can come up with is that Hillary wanted to do it (for reasons unknown) and threatened to leave the regime (and run against him) if she didn’t get her way.

    Yeah: I think he’s that shallow and self-interested.

    • When it comes to foreign relations, it seems to me that Obama’s main point is to relegate the US to a spear carrier and sugar daddy for the international community’s pet causes.

      For example, much was been made of Obama’s nauseating decision about Honduras over a year ago. However, as I see it, Obama was just following the overwhelming majorities for that decision by other international groups.

      My reading of Libya is that France and Britain committed themselves to Qaddafi’s opposition when they thought the rebels were winning and now they will be harmed if Qadaffi remains in power. They mobilized European support. Hillary went with the Europeans because of deals or because she likes Samantha Power’s R2P concept. Obama would have preferred that the world fall into line each time he makes a speech, but with Europe and Hilary on board and the pressure to live up to his brave proclamations that Qadaffi must go, he finally had to go along too.

      So the decision was barely thought-out and had little regard for military concerns and here we are. Pretty cool.

      • US to a spear carrier and sugar daddy for the international community’s pet causes.
        Well, yeah.  WE have penitence to do.  Got to spread the wealth around.  What’s a super-power for, if not to do good with.  Oh, and WE have to soak up all the oppressed/poor/whatever, cause we did whatever.
        This really is the distilled Collectivist view of our role internationally.  Obama is executing what he was taught.

        • My guess is France and UK pushed Hillary to push Obama. Then they come up with the idea of a No Fly Zone that would cover bombing tanks, plus the brilliant idea that the USA would only be involved in the initial stages.
          You can bet that’s what sold Obama. “So you’re saying the Europeans just need us for a few days in the beginning, and then they promise they will take over?”
          Obama’s limited experience means he believed that. He thinks nothing will stick to the USA (I already saw today the news calling it a US-led coalition) and he gets to look tough and not worry about long-term occupations, etc. Wouldn’t this also explain how he figured he could skate off to South America? No big deal. It will be done in a matter of days. Right.

  • The Obama doctrine:  Play golf, watch basketball, bad-mouth republicans, appoint radical czars, talk down the economy, talk down the nation. Apologize and genuflect to foreigners. bomb foreigners.  Drift aimlessly through life.

  • So who gets the full Monty [PYTHON] and what popular uprising gets ignored by the doctrine?

    Maybe it hinges on how many times the term “madman” is used in reference to the deposee…???  Not how many times it SHOULD be used, as in Iran, but in the how many times it is ACTUALLY used in the MSM.  You know, to show consensus…
    Hell, that’s as rational as I can get here in this “kinetic military action” thingy…that is NOT a war…and is NOT a battle.

  • Heh – The Obama Doctrine -
     
    “Go for it..”  The President said, and added “I just made that up, pretty cool, am I “awesomness in a box” or what?”
     
    When asked who he thought would ultimately triumph in Libya, the President hesitated for a moment before responding – “Iowa”.

  • What about the situation in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?  Or how about Iran?  Both are clear cases of oppressive regimes yet each have big international friends.  In the case of SA, it is the US and in the case of Iran it is China and Russia.

  • Or perhaps its “I’m so far over my head, I’ll let whomever last has my ear run with whatever it is they want to do…I’m going golfing”
    My own take on this is here:
    http://herbegerenews.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/missing-obama-lack-of-leadership/
     
     

    • Sounds very plausible. I know that if I wanted to convince him to bomb Libya, I’d start off by talking about how he was looking weak and people were starting to have doubts. Then I’d bring up the idea of a limited involvement.
      Obama loves that “waffle” position.

    • Michael Ledeen says it best: The wimp goes to war!
      http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/03/22/the-wimp-goes-to-war/
      I was right to worry about what the president might do to demonstrate his virility on the international stage, and the confusion surrounding just about everything having to do with the Libya thing certainly proves that.  But I had underestimated this administration’s misreading of the situation, and they have dragged most of the pundits along with them, to such an extent that it’s nearly impossible to see Libya in context.  That’s not unusual or even surprising.  When Egypt happened, it was all about Egypt.  When Tunisia happened, that was the lone subject for analysis.  And now it’s all Libya, all the time.

  • War on Terror = overseas contingency operation
    America at Not War = “kinetic military action”
    Re-election campaign = “public narcissistic orgasm”

  • Obama Doctrine = Schoolyard Bully
     
    “If we can get away with it, go for it!”
     
     

  • My favorite is the “if the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs” line.  Boy, that really clears things up.  I was so confused before, but NOW!!!! </sarcasm>

  • Without international support, they’re out of luck.  Without international support the US gets overstretched, easily demonized, and ends up in a situation where our country gets divided and we become weaker — that happened with Iraq.  Countries don’t feel compelled to help if things go bad, and we bear the whole cost.  Intervention is only going to succeed and be likely to be replicated if it is done in a sustainable manner, with international support.   President Obama is playing this one perfectly, he learned from the horrible error President Bush made.   And don’t be surprised if success in Libya makes the international community more willing to act in regions where they can make a difference.  In many ways, this resembles just war theory (must be ordered by a legal authority, success must be likely, the cost of intervening should not outweigh the cost of doing nothing, etc.)

    • “And don’t be surprised if success in Libya makes the international community more willing to act in regions where they can make a difference.”
       
      You think there will be “success” in Libya!
      Pray, define for us, if you will, “success”.  I would dearly love for you to prognosticate upon this.  Gaze for us in your many degree’d crystal ball and impart upon us your wisdom, earned no doubt from careful study of politics both national and international and postings on the web.  Please, I beg of you, oh sage one, enlighten us.
       
       
       

    • President Obama is playing this one perfectly….  In many ways, this resembles just war theory….

      Does this mean you’re pro-war now?