Doug Feith served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for President George W. Bush from July 2001 until August 2005, where he worked closely with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials on U.S. policy from Afghanistan to Iraq. (Fareed highlighted an incredible April 7, 2003 memo Rumsfeld sent Feith basically asking him to solve the world’s most intractable problems in a few lines.) Feith is also the author of War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, and director of the Center for National Security Strategies at the Hudson Institute.
I talked with Feith this afternoon about American foreign policy in the Middle East. Here’s an edited transcript of what Feith had to say about President Obama’s motivations for intervention in Libya.
“Most people are analyzing U.S. action in Libya in a way that makes what President Obama is doing seem incomprehensible. If the President says Gadhafi must go and believes it is important enough to engage our military to achieve this objective, why would he wait two or three weeks before making a stand? If the President’s goal is to protect civilians in Libya, how can he be willing to let Gadhafi - the source of the humanitarian danger in Libya - remain in power after the operation ends?
“Pundits are puzzled because they assume President Obama is focused on Libya. But that assumption may be false.
“The only way to make the President’s behavior comprehensible is to recognize that he has a larger strategic goal than just the outcome of Libya. While the rest of the country is focused on Libya’s future, the President is focused on fundamentally changing America’s role and standing in the world. Libya, for him, is simply an occasion for undertaking a radical reformulation of 70 years of American foreign policy.
“At least since the U.S. entered World War II, there has been a view of the United States as a leading power, a democratic power, a country that acts boldly in its own interests. I think President Obama does not believe that’s the role America should play in the world.
“Had the Arab League vote, the push by the French and British and the UN vote not lined up as they did, the intervention in Libya wouldn’t have happened. This means that whatever happens in Libya is less important to the President than these other factors.
“The President is saying that as important as Libya is, it is not as important as the principle that the U.S. should not act independently. He is saying, 'I’m willing to intervene in Libya only if I can do it in a way that establishes the principle that America does not act unilaterally, independently or simply for American interests. We only act within multilateral contexts. We try not to take the lead and when we do have to assert leadership, we do not hold it for very long. We transfer leadership early.'
“Essentially, the President wants to cut America down to size - he would say make America a better citizen of the world. But what he is talking about is moving America away from a position of leadership.
“This explains why the President missed a major opportunity two to three weeks ago to seize on the momentum of the rebels to defeat Gadhafi. Unlike other countries that acted earlier to support the rebels, the President did not recognize the rebels, arm them or provide other forms of support. He did not want to act without the United Nations.
“Over the next two to three weeks, Gadhafi turned the tide and recaptured virtually all the ground he had lost. Only when he was on the verge of wiping out rebels - and only after the international community had come together - did President Obama act.
“What President Obama is doing is very risky. He is taking an important military action in a circumstance that he does not consider to be very important. He’s gone out of his way to emphasize that we shouldn’t consider it too important either - waiting for the UN, emphasizing limitations on our means, and stressing that he does not want to lead the operation.
“The President said at the outset that we are not going in on the ground. But if he had the strategic goal of removing Gadhafi from power, the smart thing to do would be to say that that was the goal, and to stress our determination to achieve it.
“Instead, he has signaled to the Libyan people that if the going gets hard, America won't escalate its efforts and will therefore settle for a more modest goal than ousting Gadhafi. Even if President Obama has no intention of sending in ground forces, it doesn’t serve U.S. purposes to announce that because it sends a negative message to Libyan people, whom we are trying to motivate.
“But - and here is the key point - President Obama is less interested in motivating Libyans to overthrow Gadhafi than in establishing the principle of constrained American action.
“This is why many American commentators have said they lack confidence in the President regarding Libya.
“Now he may turn out to be lucky in Libya. Tomorrow Gadhafi could get a bullet in his head from somebody in Libya. Everything may turn out well. That would be good for America and good for the world. But that would not be the result of our action. It would just be good luck.”
 |
Post by: |
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
I think there are a lot of presumptions about what the President is thinking without anything that supports the position. President Obama has proven again and again he is a consensus builder rather than trailblazer. That's just seems to be his style. In this case without a direct threat to the US and in a politically dangerous part of the world, that philosophy makes a lot of sense. The idea that working with allies in this way somehow weakens America is ludicrous. Leadership can be expressed in many different ways and sometimes through consensus makes common and political sense.
I think Feith has it wrong, and I think he's wrong mostly because he perceives America is a nation of unlimited power and resource.
Enter the reality / dirty little secret that our current military strength is incapable of fielding a third theater of warfare. There is a personnel and logistics limitation and a funding limitation, two tangible limitations that prevent us from entering Libya.
This happens to be convenient because I believe the Obama admin is meaning to pressure the Arab League into policing it's own ghetto. The AL complains about dictators like Libya but do nothing about it and ask the EU, UN and America for help when things run afoul in their own backyard. It's time America drew a line in the sand. We will protect OUR OWN interests globally, but if you have a regional mess then the only way we'll show up to the party is via a Security Council resolution (read: if we feel like it to avoid a PR disaster).
Enter the other reason we're dropping bombs but not boots: it is impossible for America to claim itself the champion of freedom while watching Gadafi assault his country. We had to do something, anything.
Additional evidence that undermines Feith's idea that Obama wants to move America away from a position of leadership is his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He pushed to finish up and leave Iraq because it was an unpopular situation for America to be in – nationally in America, globally and locally in Iraq and the region. Meanwhile, he has been hawkish in Afghanistan, fielding more military assets to that theater. Frankly, if the military wasn't in a reduced posture due to tour fatigue in Iraq then chances are we'd be liberating Libya by the weekend.
Political realities exist in Washington today which Feith has not accounted for. An exhausted military, the importance for America to defend freedom while simultaneously avoiding being seen as attacking YET ANOTHER Muslim country, and a budget crisis that has even hawkish Republicans chirping like baby sparrows, begging the administration not to spend any money on military actions.
Feith missed this one by a mile.
It's a stretch to ascribe motives to Obama beyond getting reelected in 2012. He alludingly promises, then goes with the flow. He caved on taxing the rich. He caved on single payer. He caved on closing Gitmo. He short-sold involvement in Af-Pak with a fairy tale July '11 drawdown date and is in the process of caving on that one. And he didn't put on his comfy shoes and walk the protest line in WI as so facetiously but purposefully promised while campaigning. Obama promises, then caves. He throws things out that many read too much in to as his trademarked sales technique. The only problem Obama has is if he stands still on new promises.
Leadership is not consensus building. It requires correct vision and determined subsequent action. The last thing a group of people lost out in the woods needs is a consensus builder, as if one can compass the way out by consensus vectoring all the mistakes that led to getting lost in the first place. What Feith wrote about may be the result of Obama's actions in Libya, but it wasn't the motive for his action.
And with regard to Libya, we are still hung up at square one: There was no direct threat to us to warrant military intervention. 'We' didn't have to do 'something.' Obama did.
In terms of liberal/conservative Obama is neither fish nor fowl. And that doesn't translate into being middle of the road, in a good way. What's most interesting now is how liberals now find themselves in company with Tea Partiers over Obama's Libyan escapade, the same Tea Party previously described by liberals as racist, homophobic, gun toters.
Obama realises that the U.S. foreign policy has to take a new course, away from that of his predecessors. I think he wants to adopt John Jay's ideas to lay out new principles for American diplomacy. Of course circumstances and the American interests were totlally different in Jay's time. Indeed Obama is one of the only few presidents, who try to define a new foreign policy, To make an effort is one thing. to succeed is another.
Feith's wars are still on-going and the outcome could hardly be deemed "favorable" and their "luck" has yet to play itself out. What did we get for those other two wars? We borrow money from the Chinese to pay off our own Corporations to fight these wars. Really, making executives wealthier is good foreig policy? Really?
I think it's pretty understandable to hesitate to declare an all out full-scale war, when we're already deep into two others that have gone on for far too long. It makes a good case to get out of a country or two when you consider that you never know when a situation like Libya might come up that you hadn't really planned on. The country is just maxed out, financially, emotionally, spiritually on all these wars.
Why does Doug Feith's opinion matter at all? He's one of the most deeply dishonest neo-Con Bush cabinet members who got it totally wrong in the middle east costing thousands of American lives.
And why did CNN use a headline Obama 'wants to cut American down to size"? That looks like those words were from Obama and they were Feith's.
We seem to have this need to be the world policeman and are ready on a moment's notice to spill our men and women's blood on foreign soil. Lets get to the meat of the matter. Not including WWII, It is usually done for oil.
He's easing us into UN control. Clinton before and now Barry.
Getting this guy to comment on the MIddle East is like getting Charley Sheen to discuss sobriety.
I agree that we can't completely understand the Presidents intentions or motivations, however we have seen here that when the United States is not a leader other countries, even the UN lack conviction to take charge and responsibility. I've seen that over the last week in articles about this topic. Obama may have a goal to tell the world we are no longer the single force to depend on, but then even over the years as the hate mail came in about America we where leaders and thats a good position to be in so others may strive to be like us, free. I'm on the side that while I dont' like always being so involved in world matters I am proud to be living in a country that is a leader in so many areas. I've traveled a lot and enjoy hearing people say good things about us..now what are they going to say...we'll America might help, might lead, might solve a problem, might be there as an example. Not sure I like the sound of that. Like telling my daughter, well you can grow up and maybe be this or that, but if your not thats ok, most people aren't successful anyway.
Like a good parent, let your children try on their own before you rush in to help them. They just might surprise you.
Agree with you. I can also tell you are a person with a good head on your shoulders. I think your daughter is very fortunate to have you as a parent and I hope that she will bring you lots of joy and always, will make you proud. I truly mean that:-)
Peace.
Under Doug Feith & George W. Bush leadership, we entered into two (2) wars, Afganistan & Iraq, which added to the massive deficit America and Americans are now burdened. We are having to clean up these wars that they were unable to end. His perception and rational is poor to say the least!
Guess who builds the global surveyor's and droans along with numerous other military warfare equipment both sides of the bush families and you blame it on poor perception.!, it's more like wealthy conspiracies of promoting unnecessary war and furthering the conspiracy in prolonging the wars. truth is we don't need the bush center for indignation intelligence. it's got to get bull dozed to the ground or were going to have too much war all the time! the horrendous cost of the CIA RMS NSA NCS HMS and all the other gerencies around it are the cacodoxies that exacerbate perduellion from unjust zygnomic zetectic cacodoxies promoted by malice in the CIA NSA RMS NCS HMS. the bush administration should be prosecuted for all their criminal conspiracies.
YeY!
Juez–You are so right. The only thing I would change in your post is that those two wars didn't just add to the deficit, they created the deficit. Bush inherited a surplus from the Clinton years. Conservative "fiscal responsibility" in action.
Wow, if I want slobbering conservative bull crap about Obama as socialist-muslim-loving-hitler-rev Wright devotee born in Kenya, I can always turn to FOX and the dozens of other conservative propaganda outlets.
Now, CNN seems obliged to add more far right hate mongers- to be fair and balanced, perhaps?
In that case, BE fair and balanced, and post glowing reports of Obama's foreign policy moves alongside.
Neither extreme is warranted, but CNN certainly has learned in recent years how to suck up to anyone, now it is the teaparty hatemongers and BUSH warmongers.
How about at least an attempt to get unbiased analysis?
Confusion is often the best ammunition a person can have. Doug Feith's opinion is logical in one way, that is that people believe what they hear. If Obama believes we need ground troops I'm sure they will be sent in, if the U.N. unilaterally decides to k ill Gadhafi, it will be done. Nothing says leadership and strength like not doing what everyone knows you are capable of doing. Our presence in Libyia is not comparable to Iraq or Afghanistan, for now, the media does not need to know the plan. Lets surprise Gadhafi.
People believing what they want to hear is how Obama was elected in the first place. Don't underestimate the ignorance of the American people at times.
"“Essentially, the President wants to cut America down to size – he would say make America a better citizen of the world. But what he is talking about is moving America away from a position of leadership."
Wrong analysis. I invite you to read some old documents by IBM when they tested new leaner teams models. What Obama is doing is verry similar to that.
Bessides, do you really want , as an american, to see the usa become like a nazi germany, taking over the world ? – I hope not
Obama is the first president to acknowledge America role as model citizen of the world, and encouraging other countries to reach their full potential, and move toward democracy
This in turn has a hugue potential for human rights, trade and research. Because this can create a much more solid social tissue accross the world
This view is much stronger than a confrontational approach
We have a verry short time to act before the earth become unsalvageable. We need to bring the world power into full swing. This is only possible if the corporation can be brought under full democratic control, which is only possible under a worldwide democracy
As it stand right now, numerous corporate scandals occured, and keep occuring
-Nike exploitation of kids workers in india
-natural dammage due to oil exploitation in africa, and the gulf oil spill
-endlish skirmishes and arms dealing in troublesome regions
Stop washing your hands of Blood. Face the truth.
That's what Obama is doing. For the first time bringing America in line with its claimed democratic principles, making it a force for good, rather than a two side coin like the roman empire was (good inside, bad outside)
He understand the need to respect and help the peoples arround the world
It is time to stop thinking about "american interest"
A more stable and healthy middle east will provide long term gains for the usa in the form of improved trade and trust.
Wow...TenFoldSky...I hope I don't get any packages in the mail from YOU.
Well TenFoldSky, unfortunately, most of the world isnt ready for the social tissue you advocate. It is not, and will never be as utopian as you described. The passive agression in your posting indicate you would most likely enjoy a no fly zone imposed over the US by Iran or better yet, Yemen, or even Libya.
Obama reminds me of the simple conservative, Gahdafi had to stop killing his people! so he did what he could. I would have tried different measures such as shutting down the ultra secret CIA RMS M.A.D.A.I operations that promoted all the upheaval. what is the point in pissing gadhafi off even more then he already is we are not going to stay there and the people who are are NOT going to do the job so what is the poing it's like toying with the mother bear. the U.S could have easily averted all wars since desert storm. the reason the U.S didn't avert these wars is cause the United States uses Private Defense Contracting and war means extreme wealth to them. not to mention having to either use or dismantle munitions. the Bush's shouldn't have ever been our president's. G.W.B AND G.H.W.B would have made better drunks. it's too bad the Illuminati weren't fond of bush, things might have been different. I'm convinced the us is war mongering and for that it is the bad guy. 12 years of bush center for indignation how could the people have been so naive.
And to top it off just think about this for a moment, as guilty as the bush center for indignation is and as much iniquity as they have and they wont simply just take out who the public enemy, cause the bush center for intelligence is in the business of prolonging war for private defense contractors to profit from and that say's it all don't it. private defense contracting = prolonged war.
14 years of war and 14 trillion dollars later. I think retard's would have figured out were being played off by malice zetectic forces using their cacodoxies of zygnomic perduellion to trick us into staying at war so ultra secret private defense contracting can become beyond wealthy.!
I agree with other posters who feel Mr. Feith is off the mark. Both the Europeans and the Arab League have a history of talking a moral stance and advocating action while not walking the talk. My guess is that President Obama has been working behind the scenes to get the EU and the Arab League to take on the responsibility of their positions and act. The Europeans in particular (and the Arab League to an extent) have capable militaries, so there is no need for the U.S. to do all the heavy lifting. By waiting for the UN resolution, President Obama has forced the EU to step up to the plate. Well done!
I think that other countries, their leaders, and populations may interpret the situation differently. War is VERY expensive. Money spent on war is wasted, and cannot be used for police, border security, anti-terrorism, education, welfare, health care etc. The countries that are not spending huge amounts on foreign campaigns are able to either lower taxes, borrow less, or provide a higher level of service to their population.
The U.S. runs a huge deficit and must rely on foreign funds to run the government. Many European countries run much smaller deficits, lower taxes, and/or provide much larger services to their citizens (regardless your view on proper government size, war and its expenses mandates a larger government).
To conclude, the Europeans, mainly France, STRONGLY wanted something done in Libya. The French President would be thrilled if the United States would spend its money and forces to accomplish it. By not offering to do it up front, Obama is forcing other countries to share at least a part of the cost. If you would also notice, other countries rapidly withdrew their forces from Iraq and left us to squander billions there. The same is happening in Afghanistan.
Think about the money. That is what other countries do. Somehow the U.S. has forgotten that these wars eventually have to be paid for with REAL money or "inflation". The cruise missiles cost $500,000 to $1.5 M each, for starters. How many years of YOUR taxes does that equal? And that is just a drop in the bucket.
We are bombing other countries with the value equivalent of mansions. That's not partisan or political, its just a fact.
James– You are so right. Well said.
Americans need to understand that war only serves one purpose – deaths. That President Obama is erring on the side of caution by choosing not to commit the young men and women who proudly serve the nation to another death theatre should be commended rather than condemned as Mr Feith's article suggests. America doesn't become less of the leader that her people wants it to be by choosing to be less arrogant and unnecessarily aggressive. Sometimes, having enormous power, but using it sparingly is what earns you the trust and friendship of the rest of the world. Trust and friendship, and not brute force, will keep America in her leadership position. The Romans didn't learn this on time and paid dearly, so did the Germans. Besides, where's the assurance that people world over will like America better and love Americans more after it decides to take unilateral action to start a third world in the middle east. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are part o the reasons many young islamic people in the middle east are getting radicalized and I don't think it makes any sense for the USA to start a third front that will create thousands of ready martyrs in North Africa. Obama showed himself to be a truly democratic president leading a democratic nation by waiting for the rest of the world to democratically reach a consensus on the best way to interfere in Libya's internal affairs. Had he acted otherwise, he would have continued the Bush regime's trend of dictating to the rest of the world how the UN should be run. Time will tell, but I hope Americans realize that empires crumble when their people and leaders start thinking they are invisible and they actually tell the rest of the world that's what they think! Mr Feith's opinion is that America is an infinitely powerful and invisible entity that can effectively police the globe. At least Obama has shown he understands there is wisdom in being cautious and discreet even if he also thinks the USA is invisible. Praise him for his good judgement even if you hate him!
You are so naive........end my statement below!!
If Doug Feith, one of incompetent scumbag "architects" of the Bush-era fiascoes, says that Obama has something wrong, then I'm pretty much going to have to assume that Obama has it right.
Neo-con, chickenhawk under Bush = ZERO credibility. Basically, Feith and his ilk, and along with much of the media lapping it up, think the cowboy approach is better.
CNN used to be a source for on spot news, but its now opinionated make believe, supporting an odd agenda. This "analysis" is rediculous and false. Why should the US engage in a 3rd international fight, in the middle of an economic crisis of centurial propoportion. Its not the priority, but clearly so important we can't ignore. I question America's ability to manage our multiple roles militarily, and am only relieved our President would not commit our armed forces to another long term and complicated fight, when we clearly need focus on our existing commitments in Iraq and Afganistan.
Ferth worked for ex-president Bush. Bush and his Cheneys and Rumsfelds invaded without long-term planning. They just jumped in with no long-range plan. Ten years later and we are still paying almost One Trillion Dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan wars while we cannot afford to educate or employ our population. Libya is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Think first, invade later.
What a load of nonsense.
Mr Feith obviously does not understand how empires grow, and then end up crumbling because of imperial overstretch, and arrogance. The US cannot continue its current foreign policies, because to do so would be to ignore the obvious – the country is in a state of decline, and is being eclipsed by new emerging powers. We need to focus on fixing the economy, and start making things again in this country.
History is full of such examples, and the United States in not the only hegemonic power that has deluded itself into believing that its on some sort of God given mission over the rest of the world.
There is an old military maxim that says few battle plans survive the first contact with an enemy. Only in humanity’s not in God’s, experience. His plan, conceived from eternity and worked through the centuries has proceeded exactly as he foresaw it. The Bible then doesn’t merely tell us what happens in history, but why. It doesn’t merely tell that history occurs, but where it’s going while it occurs.
The purpose of the Bible is to teach how God achieves his will in history, not how humanity increases in business or technology, the arts or the sciences. The Bible shows that knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4). Yet, Paul warned Timothy (1Tim 6:19) to guard the gospel, which many disregarded by turning to what’s “falsely called knowledge”. Remember that the Bible says the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge leading to wisdom from God’s word; it isn’t merely knowledge leading to inventions and discoveries in the natural world.
True to its God-ordained purpose, the Bible doesn’t tell us how Indians got to America from the Plain of Shinar-or all races to the uttermost parts of the world. We have but educated guesses to determine that. But, we know clearly how the Israelites got to Babylon and why they got back to Palestine from Babylon. The reason why the former is interesting, but the latter essential, is that the former fulfilled God’s purpose geographically while the latter fulfilled his personal will in the world. That emphasis shows where God put the emphasis in history. What happens to the Aborigine in Australia may interest the anthropologist, but what happens to Israel interests God and his ultimate purpose in history.
God allowed humanity to go from one age of communication to another-without a care or concern. For he measures the worth of persons or societies by how willingly they obey him, not by how technologically or educationally or scientifically advanced they become. Again, as Paul said to Timothy no matter how we increase in knowledge, a simultaneous decline in morals occurs (1 Tim 4:1-5, 1 John 4:1-3).
Genesis 6 foreshadowed our modern age. The generation of the Flood had heroes of renowned, powerful, mighty men. They may have been godly men. But, heroism wasn’t a synonym for spiritual then, and neither is patriotism, or wealth or brilliance or beautiful today. Heroes of old, men of renown, but what followed was God’s judgment on an increasingly depraved culture for defying God’s will (Gen 6:1-5).
The Bible explains the origin of all evil as the single act of disobedience to God’s word in Eden (Gen 2:15-17, 3:6). That sin not only severed our relationship with God; it opened humanity to a life time of sin in all its ugliness, making every sin possible, nay, inevitable. Pandora’s Box is the Greek explanation of that Biblical truth.
Its all just a power game by people who lack the knowledge of God and his will.
Umm I say conscript a north american army of 2 million. build an insane military, And destroy everyone in our path to the ultimute empire. One world order would work, providing the right people are in charge. It would rid us of world instability. 2012 Isnt a natural disaster, we'll destroy ourselves, thanks to our pety differances, racism, and religion. See you all on the battle feild. Lock and load.
We can put you in the front of the line? We already have a hugh military.....it needs to be home and not playing policeman for the rest of the sin in the world.
tomi–I know an army of 2 million sounds like a lot. It is, and it is far more people than should ever have to risk or sacrifice their lives in war. However, it is a small number in the history of war. Remember World War I, the so-called war to end all wars? There were approximately 65 million combatants in that war (42,632,000 fought for the Allied Powers and 22,850,00 for the Central Powers). in todays wars it is not so much size that matters as it is weaponry, technology, information, training, will, and support. Even then, victory is not assured. In the past, you could win a battle and lose the war. Today you can win the war but lose the peace. War is increasingly becoming a no-win proposition for all involved. Unfortunately humanity has neither outgrown it nor found other universally acceptable or reliable ways to resolve disputes. One hopes humanity will one day mature beyond war, but that time has not yet arrived.
Leadership is doing what you want other people to do and not doing what you want others to not do. If we want other countries to respect international law, to not treat military force as a first resort for solving problems, to not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and to ask for help from the international community when they feel threatened rather than taking matters into their own hands, we have to practice what we preach. Other countries will wonder, "If the most powerful, dominant country in the history of the world cannot or will not do it, why should we?"
who is man ?
So much of this policy is being built as a direct response and adjustment to the damage wrought by Bush's 8 years in office, especially as concerns the fiasco in Iraq. With Iraq, the US has suffered such a loss of confidence and credibility, and it is difficult to see how Pres. Obama could partake in Libya without securing multilateral support. We have hamstrung ourselves, and have no one to blame but Bush/Cheney/Rove.
Seriously, I love the how so many people can be hypocrites. Bush kept this country safe for eight years through attacking these "people" (I use that term loosely) over in the Middle East that attacked us on 9/11. I mean Bush took down Hussein in a matter of six weeks but he went the extra mile for these people to unite them under a democratic government. And what happened? Well lets see, the Shites, Sunnis and even Kurds are all working together under a Prime Ministry to make Iraq a better country for its people. And who is to blame for democracy springing up in Iraq? GWB I think. And I also love how the left side of America will argue about the fact that we are in a debt because of these wars. Wait, did Clinton's Gulf War disappear? Come on people. The last time America was debt free was when Andrew Jackson was President. Obama is not a war time President at all. He is being skiddish when it comes to Libya and he is lowering defense spending. What type of leader lowers defense spending in a time of war? Thats like a King taking down his castle wars during a time of war because he can't afford it anymore. Bottom line is Bush kept this country safe and make Iraq and Afghanistan a more politically stable place. It appears to me that the rest of the Middle East is taking actions of their own to make sure democracy springs up in there countries aswell.
You really still think 9/11 was all outsourced and BIG BROTHER had no stake in it at all???
I wholeheartedly agree with the President in regeards to downsizing America, we should start in the White House!
I disagree with so much of this article that it's hard to know where to start, and I say that as a Republican. Leadership doesn't mean that we everything on our own. No good leader does that. Good leaders delegate. Good leaders get a team involved. Good leaders lead by example, but they don't shoulder entire burdens when they don't have to. I haven't seen any evidence that the United States is diminished in the eyes of the world by agreeing to work as a group.
I don't think that there's a person on the planet that knows what the region between the Ivory Coast and China is going to look like in five years, or even one. Any of those countries can go any direction. The important thing is not to be reactionary, and not to feel like the United States has to hold all of those countries together or they will fall apart (in fact, to think that one leader is essential and must stay in total control forever is a very dictatorial way of thinking). The best strategic goal for the President to have is to try and get his international allies all on the same page when it comes to fostering democracy in a region that is just learning to embrace it.
America can lead without doing everything itself.
Stop judging by past, long gone standards. We need a new book of standards by which everyone on the planet must abide. Live and let live. Equality for men and women. Cleaner living conditions. Food on everyones table. Education for all children. It does not matter what your religious beliefs are, simply do not try to thrust them on others.
Mankind has such incredible potential, and we live on a most beautiful planet. Why must man continue to destroy as opposed to create. The combined ground available for agriculture is more than enough to sustain another 8 billion people.
We must start placing greed and political control in the garbage where it belongs. Stop the weapons of mass destruction and supply plows and harvesters. Our standards will go higher while the death toll will be lower.
I challenge mankind to stop the crap, become men amongst men.
Help your fellow man, do not fear him. It is not God who is intolerant but man who is stupid.
Cutting America down to size is a socialist/communist ideal. WE do not want our country cut down. We are proud to be Americans. We do not want a President who bows to foreigners. We do not want a President who makes excuses and apologizes to other countries. We want a President who is proud to be an American and we do not have that. He is the President because the stupid Republicans tried to get Palin elected. It was a matter of picking the lesser of two evils and this is what we got. Obama has absolutely no leadership skills. He can talk up a storm but can't do much else. So, what would a good President have done with Libya? Reagan is dead so I guess we'll never know.
GaHap says: "So, what would a good President have done with Libya? Reagan is dead so I guess we'll never know."
GaHap is wrong on two points: First, we do know what Reagan would have done with Libya. Reagan talked really tough, dropped a bomb on Gadhafi's tent, missed Gadhafi but killed his baby, which led to Gadhafi murdering several hundred Americans; Gadhafi remained safely in power thereafter. Second, we do know what a good President would do about Libya because we have a superb President in Barak Obama who has done an amazing job of consensus building, diplomacy, and using American power to the benefit of the United States and the world.
I believe The President has achieved the objective of "cutting us down to size" beyond his wildest expectations. The French are literally ecstatic in leading a mission where we have already done all the heavy work and they can claim leadership. Imagine patrolling a no-fly zone over a country with no aircraft! Now not only do they not like us but respect us even less. Ditto for the rest of the world. Good job Mr. President. Your Libya war room made my TopTen list this week.
JT
http://www.alittleleftofright.com
Let the rest of the World stop all the Killing in the World!!! The United States sure can't afford to do it... We have enough problems of Our Own here!!!
One wonders why a network with some shred of credibility remaining would jeopardize its reputation by publishing an interview with this fool. Seriously, I'd be more interested in hearing the views of my daughter's third grade classmates. The only possible explanation for CNN doing this interview would be to raise its ratings with the right wing extremists in the Tea Party and others who worship demagoguery.
Sara–CNN is doing exactly the right thing by publishing this opinion piece. Like you, I disagree with Mr. Feith's assessments on just about everything. How do I know this? I know it because news outlets like CNN have interviewed him or published his opinion pieces. It is equally important (if not more important) to read or hear the opinions of those with whom you disagree as it is to hear those with which you agree. When you have access to the thoughts of your opponents you can: 1) know what they are thinking, 2) better understand their actions, 3) better predict their future actions, 4) formulate reasoned critiques and persuasive arguments against those ideas, 4) formulate and implement policies that address their concerns without adopting their policies with witch you agree, 5) discover any common ground you might share, 6) integrate any good ideas they might have hidden among their idiotic ideas into your policies and actions. In other words, we should all be grateful to those media who broadcast and print opposing opinions because they keep us informed and better prepared and because. In fact, we should demand that all media present opposing opinions. Don't forget, our opinions are also opposing opinions. If we wish to be heard, we should be willing to hear others as well.
Oops–I keep forgetting to review my comments before I post. Point 4 in my post should read: 4) formulate and implement policies that address their concerns without adopting their policies with witch you disagree,
PssasY Good point. I hadn't touhght about it quite that way.
wLOme0 djsiqtziakck
We are paying for rushing in to help everyone around the world – we already have a debt that will never be fixed because of the politicians. We go to help everyone and pay for ourselves. If and we should (take the leadership role) go in and help either humanitarian or in the case of Libya – go in hard, go in fast, and go in to WIN. Do not play games – do not play politics and try to be nice to everyone – bending American power when another country cries. We have gotten away from what America was. A power – do not mess with us. We have the power – Use IT. There is no surprise about Obama's actions – what did anyone expect from him? continued downgrading of American power.
Nice. Pulling the US out of a world leadership role would lead to what? If the US isnt leading, who will it follow? Oh yes, people used to hope Saddam Hussien or Osama bin Laden would get shot or die of a heart attack too. Wishfull thinking cannot take the place of leadership and inaction.
Sorry James way above, I didnt see your name. The post immedialtey above this is James E.
All right James. You the man. It's about time Americans speak out and have the balls to be responsible... and not crawl under their shell (i.e. home to watch cableTV and "Gone with the Wind"). Americans need to wake up, be responsible, and take the lead. If you're the number one Superpower, you should act like one. Stop acting like a wimp in this world. The world is looking for America for leadership – not make stupid mistakes but clear, logical and make sense (with principles) leadership. American may not make all the right decisions but at least 80% are right for the world.
First couple of days cost the USA about 900 million and it requires up to 300 million week to maintain. I do not see the logic in staying with this turnip with have plenty of wars going on to be able to let someone else handle it.
There's some seriously deluded liberals 'round these parts !
None of you posting here seem to be any smarter than your failed social experiment – aka Barry Soetoro. He's a laughing stock around the globe , an abject failure here at home....yet you still support him ! I mean... what would it take for a liberal to see reality? I actually think it's funny. All you pathetic libs running around trying to convince each other that Barry is an actual leader....an actual Chief Executive. Ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!
The NEW WORLD ORDER GOV does not include any KINGS or DICTATORS. Does anyone believe that all these protests and uprising just happened on their own. This is a movement to create the NEW WORLD ORDER. The reason Libya was attacked is that the Dictator found out that all he had to do was fight back against the protesters. Words will not defeat these uprisings. If you sit and do nothing your nation will be destroyed along with you. One by One every DICTATOR AND KING will be taken down. Every KING and DICTATOR will have to stick together and help each other if any of them hope to survive this uprising. With every nation that falls there is less of a chance that any will survive. If you let Libya fall then the only Question is "What nation is next...."
All right makom8. You the man!
If you find a bully in the street killiing someone, are you going to do something about it or not? If you have the means, you will. That's what Libya is about for Obama. Feith is projecting and making assumptions beyond Obama's intended purpose. Real leading is not unilateral bullying. It's working with others toward a common goal. It has to be done taking into consideration other countries opinion's, needs, and concerns. Otherwise it just looks like we're simply bulldozing our own selfish agenda and as a result if we pay attention to history we become huge targets. The world is moving from "I" to "We" because this is spaceship Earth, not just spaceship America. Bubble-thinking has gone the way of the dinosaur.
All right JP... let's talk smacks and not put up with wimpy people who live in a bubbled world view. Americans need to spend more time overseas in Dictator and tyrant run countries, then come back and tell us how they feel.
Judging by these hypocritical comments, CNN really is just a liberal wasteland... objectional journalism? Only as biased as pravda.
Bottom line, liberals give Obama a pass on this miliatry adventure because he has a D next to his name.
Parrels? how about 17 UN resolutions spanning over a decade of a defiant madman with 32 countries signed on and approval from congress board for the removal of Saddam.
1 UN resolution and 16 countries signing on this "Kinetic Military Action" In Libya, while snubbing congress completely.
I don't know, I think W. was a little more justified in Iraq.... But, no no, don't let me interrupt your Obama circle jerk.... just know the rest of the country, the independents see the seething hypocritical liberals for exactly as they are.
Liberals, Conservatives, who gives a crap. Those are just terms and stereo types to define someone or a group that does not agree with one's opinions or thinking. The bottom line is as follows:
1. If you are the most powerful country in the world, do you sit back and have thugs run the neighborhood?
2. When you see people being slaughtered and brutalized; all for desiring justice, freedom, democracy and liberty, do you sit by and be irresponsible?
3. Would you prefer to have thugs, dictators, and tyrants run the world for you, and continue to give you grief as you introvert yourself within your boarders and say "I don't care. That's not my problem?"
American and Americans in general need to grow up and be mature. The current American generation (the 3rd and 4th generation) have become a generation of entitlement, not taking responsibility, and still acting like they are in diapers, looking for mommy and daddy to guide, provide and help them. Listen up guys: Your adults. As Americans, we stand for our principles, we defend justice, and we don't put up with dictators, tyrants, and others in or near our boarders who impact our way of life. The world is global in integrated. Injustice in this 21st century is the new war.
While I agree with the first part, Yes we should support democracy ,period. We should not act unilaterally if at all possible. Iraq, we learned a valuable lesson that's helping us now in Afghanistan. As far as Libya we are making the most responsible decision we can with world, UN and NATO support. Only problem is where does it end as far as intervention, do we enter Syria, Iran even Bahrain, home of HQ of 5th Fleet? That's the tougher question.
We take each situation and handle it separately and uniquely, depending on what occurs, how the current leaders handle it, and the outcome. Not all countries are the same and there is no single "cookie cutter" recipe for the middle-east. The answer is: it all depends. If you had 4 children, would you handle them, treat them, react to them all the same? No everyone is unique and special in their own ways. Some good, some bad, but all around not bad. If the world was a simple place and we had all the answers to all it's problems, we would solve world hunger and all the world crisis for the next century if not more. Who knows, an asteroid may be on it's way in a few years, with the power of total destruction of earth, and everything else we worry about, war and all wouldn't make much of a difference now, would it? One day at a time, one set of problems hand a uniquely a day at at time.
Doug Feith probably made worst assessment I've ever read. The U.S. shouldn't be involved in Libya at all! If the their people want democracy and regime change then so be it. Lybians should fight for it, not the U.S. I wouldn't want to hear of a single death of any of our men and women to protect people who are probably just using American fire-power for their own interests. We don't even know the rebels agenda. Can anyone explain? Congress wasn't consulted on this act of war. Why not? This administration is completely opposite of it's campaign promises.