Per latest Reuters poll 60% of Americans support Operation Let’s Pound Libya a Little. Not bad, considering that the pundits are not impressed. But that’s not where the good news lies.
Apparently a whopping 17% of American adults see Obama as a strong military leader. I’m trying to imagine who this 17% are and whatever gave them that idea. Perhaps they are very young and don’t understand what constitutes leadership. Maybe some of them are followers of Luis Farrakhan who can’t believe that Obama got the temerity to go against Qaddafi. But Farrakhan can’t possibly have that many followers.
Further good news:
Of those polled, 48 percent described Obama’s leadership as commander in chief as “cautious and consultative,” 36 percent as “indecisive and dithering” […].
“The data suggest he is perceived to be more consultative in his approach, which may distinguish him in the minds of the American public from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was not perceived to be,” said Ipsos Public Affairs Director Julia Clark, adding that the responses broke along political lines.
So nearly half of Americans thinks that some sort of caution and deliberation was behind the “kinetic strike” business. Do we have any evidence of any kind of deliberation on the part of the President? As Pundit and Pundette note, Scarecrow is winging it (h/t Political Junkie Mom). He articulated no goal, no plan of action, and is avoiding addressing the nation and the Congress to see how things will shake up. In the meantime White House can’t figure out how to transition responsibilities to NATO.
Obama’s very own special multilateralism person Samantha Power wearing a negligee.
I find Caroline Glick’s take instructive. First, there is Obama’s outlook:
The first side in the debate is the anti-imperialist camp, represented by President Barack Obama himself. Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama’s foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony.
Obama looks to the UN as a vehicle for tethering the US superpower. He views US allies in the Middle East and around the world with suspicion because he feels that as US allies, they are complicit with US imperialism.
Of course, the anti-imperialist ideology is mighty convenient when you have no interest in foreign policy to begin with. If the United States is not a force of good in the international stage, then better stay out of the world affairs. Better imagine that foreign countries, all of them, are good, and a few bows to foreign monarchs will solve all the problems. No need to learn about history, politics or national character. Not that they teach any of that in universities these days. While shunning away from international affairs, our President busies himself campaigning and nationalizing this or that industry.
Obama subcontracted his foreign “policy” to Hillary, “the opportunist,” who:
[…] supports whoever they believe is going to make them most popular with the media and Europe. In the case of Libya, the opportunist interests dictated military intervention against Gaddafi. Europe opposes Gaddafi because the French and the British bet early on that his opponents were winning. France recognized the opposition as the legitimate government two weeks ago.
Once Gaddafi’s counteroffensive began, France and Britain realized they would be harmed politically and economically if Gaddafi maintained power so they began calling for military strikes to overthrow him.
Far from “cautious and consultative,” Obama is wish-washy and weak. Republicans have their work cut out for them explaining this all to American people, 64% of whom don’t find the current President indecisive and dithering. One hopes that the registered voters are a little better informed than the general population.
Obama and Qaddafi in the happier days.
For the record, I’m for replacing the old drag queen with a French or an American puppet, but that’s not what appears to be going on.