Here is Bill Kristol’s comment on the speech the President gave last night justifying his aggression in the name of humanitarian values against Libya (yah I know Moammar is a bad guy) but not say Iran or Syria, or for that matter the terrorist enclaves of Gaza and the West Bank which are not even sovereign states:
“The president was unapologetic, freedom-agenda-embracing and didn’t shrink from defending the use of force [which is undoubtedly why he deferred to the kleptocracies of the UN, surrendered command over American troops to a Canadian general and basically washed his hands of responsibility for any mess that may ensue -- DH].”
Where to begin? It looks pretty clear at this point that Obama has pushed aside an American ally in Egypt (yah I know he’s a bad guy) and paved the way for the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of all terrorism in the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Libya Obama is supplying weapons to graduates of Guantanamo and veterans of the holy war against America in Afghanistan. His “freedom-agenda-embracing” stance doesn’t appear to preclude pressing the only democracy in the Middle East’s back to the wall. The Obama Doctrine, “responsibility to protect,” which means a license to invade another country not in self-defense but to enforce some vague “humanitarian” standard is a blank check for imperial intervention anywhere and everywhere. This is the doctrine that muddle-headed progressives who abhor the very existence of nation states may embrace. It is certainly the delusion that led Woodrow Wilson to destabilize Central Europe and set up World War II. But it is not a doctrine that conservatives who understand that rights do not exist without nation states to enforce them (and that there are precious few that are willing to do so, and none in the Middle East besides Israel) should be applauding.