Monday’s Wall Street Journal blisters “The Kucinich Republicans” – and rightly, too:
The House debate on Libya was a fiasco of evasion and posturing that vindicated the Founders for not trusting Congress with the power to run a war.
The most remarkable spectacle was the emergence of the Kucinich Republicans, who voted for Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich’s resolution that would stop U.S. military action in Libya within 15 days. At least Mr. Kucinich is consistent in opposing U.S. force against dictators and other enemies no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
But what is the explanation for the 87 Republicans, including the likes of Indiana's Dan Burton and Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner, who transform themselves into isolationists when a Democrat takes over the White House? Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota tea party favorite, also voted for the Kucinich retreat, which means she will start her campaign to become Commander in Chief by running to the left of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, Mrs. Bachmann is not.
The Kucinich resolution failed, 265-148, but only after Speaker John Boehner offered his own alternative resolution that demanded no deployment of ground troops and rebuked Mr. Obama for failing to provide “a compelling rationale” for the Libyan conflict and giving him 14 days to provide one – or, well, nothing. Mr. Boehner's resolution passed 268-145, but it is little better than Mr. Kucinich’s as a demonstration of House commitment to U.S. forces in the field.
The editors attribute this isolationist tide to partisanship, and that’s probably right in some cases. But doesn’t the President bear a large share of the blame? He has put less effort into rallying public backing for the Libya operation than Rep. Weiner has into creating a believable explanation of his tweets. I’m not surprised if GOP Congresscritters see themselves as the targets of asymmetrical political warfare: The President expends the least possible political capital. If Col. Gadhaffi falls, he takes the credit. If matters go less well, he slips away from the issue and hawkish Republicans have to deal with irate constituents.
It’s not at all obvious that the President even wants success. He didn’t intervene at the outset, when the rebellion was spreading almost unopposed and the imposition of a no-fly zone would have almost certainly have toppled the Gadhaffi regime. Now he leaves the fighting to NATO and refuses to provide ground attack aircraft to support the mission. In the words of the not exactly right-wingnut Washington Post:
The allies have asked for the resumption of strike operations by U.S. warplanes that Mr. Obama pulled from the fight in early April. But immediately after acknowledging that more resources are needed, Mr. Obama talked down the prospect of “additional U.S. capabilities,” saying “there are going to be some inherent limitations to our airstrike operations.” He added: “There may be a false perception that there are a whole bunch of secret super-effective air assets that are in a warehouse that could just be pulled out and that would somehow immediately solve the situation in Libya. That’s not the case.”
In fact no one we know of is making that claim – much less Mr. Cameron or French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose appeals for help Mr. Obama is ignoring. What the allies are seeking is no secret: eight or so U.S. AC-130 and A-10 planes, weapons that exist only in the American arsenal and that are ideal for the close ground-support operations that are much needed in Libya. In the past few days, NATO forces have stepped up attacks against the headquarters of Moammar Gaddafi in Tripoli, but if the war is to be won, rebel forces need to begin capturing more of the ground held by the regime. For that, close air support is needed – which is why France and Britain are now dispatching attack helicopters to the theater.
If the President doesn’t really want to win, that reticence would be perfectly in character. He has shown himself repeatedly to be a weak, irresolute leader (occasionally a good thing for the country, as he lacks the will to pursue many of his bad ideas, but not so good in this instance). Having been bullied by France, Italy and Britain into acting against the Mad Colonel, he’s now fearful of casualties, confusion, criticism from the Left and the other inconveniences of a vigorous “kinetic military action”. (I set aside the notion that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s ties to Gadhaffi have influenced the President. It’s obvious now that Pastor Wright was a stepping stone, not a mentor.)
The price of this pusillanimity is not just conservative enthusiasm for the venture. The “Arab Spring” is likely to become one of history’s sharp forks in the road. Despite many pessimistic mutterings, we have friends in the region, hitherto silent and repressed. It’s no secret, though, that the Islamofascists see the present turmoil as a supreme opportunity to take power. The more passive America is, the more likely that they’ll succeed.
Comments