Has Obama Learned the Folly of ‘Multilateralism’?
As for the daring Navy SEAL rescue of Captain Phillips, once again we demonstrated that nothing quite matches the brutal efficiency of the American military. As David Ignatius aptly put it: “Just as the policy mavens were beginning to debate elaborate political-military strategies for dealing with the Somali pirates, we were reminded that the best solution is sometimes the simplest and most direct — in this case the sniper’s rifle.” And, he might have added, one which requires no meeting of the UN Security Council or consultation with our allies.
The greater lesson, one which must be relearned from America’s infancy, is that great powers which fail to assert the freedom of the seas find themselves in continual peril. Even the New York Times could find the message after recollecting the story of the Barbary pirates:
But Somali piracy is not an isolated problem. It’s the latest symptom of what afflicts an utterly failed state — a free-for-all on land that has consumed the country since the central government imploded in 1991. As any warlord there can tell you, the violence is almost always about cash. “We just want the money” is their mantra.
If that sounds like the 1800s, it also invites talk of solving the problem the same way: pound the bravado out of the pirates by taking the battle to them where it hurts most — on shore. But any effort to wipe out Somali pirate dens like Xarardheere or Eyl immediately conjures up the ghost of “Black Hawk Down,” the episode in 1993 when clan militiamen in flip-flops killed 18 American soldiers. Until America can get over that, and until the world can put Somalia together as a nation, another solution suggests itself: just steer clear — way clear, like 500 miles plus — of Somalia’s seas.
In his remarks on Monday, the president once again resorted to promising multilateral action to deal with the threat of piracy. The rub, as always, will come when our allies shrug their collective shoulders and we must, once again, act to defend both our and our friends’ security interests.
So if the president is in a reflective mood, perhaps he will grasp that the rhetoric of multilateralism and the Left’s fetish of running down America do not get him very far. It might even embolden our foes (as when North Korea shot a missile while Obama talked disarmament).
What has worked historically and what continues to offer the best hope for success is bolstering American military might and demonstrating resolve — making clear our intentions and impressing upon friend and foe alike that if multilateralism does not achieve the desired result promptly, the U.S. intends to defend our interests and those of our allies by acting on its own. If multilateralism, and the painstaking process of reaching consensus, impedes prompt action to defend the security of the U.S. and its allies, then the price may be too steep. And if multilateralism necessitates that the president denigrate our accomplishments and moral standing then it is counterproductive, and not simply a waste of time.
The president has seen how multilateralism works in practice. Perhaps it will guide his actions and inform his speeches as he settles into his role as commander-in-chief. What sounds good on the campaign trail or in the halls of Harvard doesn’t necessarily work in the Oval Office. We can only hope the president is, as he says, not “naive” and comes to recognize this simple reality. Then he can begin to conform his words to his actions and provide clarity to friends and enemies alike.
That has usually served our country well.
“When our allies refuse to go along [in any armed struggle], America often must act alone.”
Here’s what I am talking about. How are those countries who, like the townspeople in High Noon, affirmatively refuse to join you in a fight against the enemies of civilization, in any way to be regarded as your “allies?” By such refusal they are choosing not to be our allies and, therefore, should not be referred to as such.
Except for those in the Anglosphere, since 1940 we have not expected or asked anything much from our expectant “Allies,” even in World War II, so their long-acquired habit, well-practiced during the Cold War, of sitting it out on the sidelines, is hardly surprising as it continues. But this still does not make them our allies, even if it does not convert them to the opposite, our declared enemies. Maybe that is what we need to refer to them as, our “Non-enemies.” Oh, wait. That’s what Obama just decided to label the militant Islamacists. I’m confused.
The rescue of Richard Phillips is a Navy highlight, not necessarily an Obambi one. The skipper of the Bainbridge acted largely on his own initiative. As such, an indication of how much the administration approves of that action is what happens to the captain’s career.
In Iraq, because of the application of American military might, we are nearing a stunning victory despite the objections of then-candidate Barack Obama and much of the “world community.”
President Bush and the American military deserve great praise for their service to mankind while America went to the mall and the American elite savaged this stunning victory.
I take issue with the notion that it is stunning that insurgents, even tens of thousands of insurgents, offering nothing but death and despair should have triumphed over 28 million people led by the most lethal and moral armend forces in the history of the world.
Yes, it did take time to defeat the insurgency but this victory should have been anticipated so long as we did not give up. Every time the terrorists bombed a military recruitment site more recruits would be lined up the next day. And even as early as 2005 Sunni brigades were fighting al Qaeda. The media largely ignored these developments because it was inconsistent with their Iraq is a fiasco narrative.
Unfortunately, while the the liberation of Iraq is objectively a great step forward for mankind, so long as it is portrayed as as a mistake the victory is robbed of its propaganda value. The left may have lost this war on the battlefield but they have won in the court of public opinion.
The outcome is very depressing. The United States gives blood and treasure to liberate 28 million and the President of the United States goes around apologizing to Muslims and the Euroweenies who were too cowardly to assist in this great humanitarian achievement. The reality of the left’s propaganda victory in the face of defeat on the battlefield renders remote the opportunity for further progress and blunts the value of the victory of the realists on the streets of Iraq.
“Let us hope the president has figured out that when our allies refuse to go along, America often must act alone.”
Hope? Hmmmm….hope. Gee, that word sounds so familiar….now where have I heard that word before?
“Has Obama Learned the Folly of ‘Multilateralism’?”
~
NO.
The CIC is not naive, he is idoelogically driven. The problem is, his ideology is naive.
Oops, Ideologically, that is.
No, President Obama still embraces ethnocentrism & multilaterlism. He is a PC time bomb just waiting to implode due to his feckless inability to lead. He couldn’t lead a group of children to a candy store even if he gave them $100 each.
My favorite line so far “giving obama credit” showed up in a post yesterday from a reader who said that that O should be given credit “for allowing the Navy to do the right thing”.
That makes him the allower-in-chief, instead of CIC. So the gratitude we are to express is gratitude that he didn’t force the worst to happen.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Once again, Ms. Rubin seems to hold out that endless, elusive hope that the Precedent will simply turn in to someone else. I find it frustrating that those who obviously have access to a deal of information, insight and opportunity (like Ms. Rubin) seem to endlessly feel compelled to “give the boy one more chance to get it right”.
Why do they find it so disconcerting to look at the duck and say, “Hey, look! There’s a duck!”
What am I missing.
Obama is the On The Job Trainee In Chief, it appears.
There are people all over the world who don’t like the United States. Now they have an American President who doesn’t much like the United States either. Talk about building a consensus!
As far as Somalia goes, the word “blockade” comes to mind. JFK risked far more to blockade Cuba, and the ships he would have had to shoot at were Soviet and were backed up by nukes. I wonder if Obama has the guts to blockade some rowboats.
sure the somali’s in flip flops killed 18 American troops, but how many of them died to do it? we supposedly went there to help them, will we return with the same mission? the same ROE, or will the USA go to destroy their base of operations. maybe we can apologize afterwards if our CIC is so inclined to do so. maybe a bill passed thru congress redirecting the 900 million promised to those pirates in Gaza to go to the somali ones. Brother can you spare a dime?
the president once again resorted to promising multilateral action
I don’t like to watch videos at work so I can’t hear the original quote, but I would hope Obama realizes that one of the fundamental features of multilateral action is you can’t promise it. You have to get the world’s most dysfunctional committee to agree on it.
Meryl:
What am I missing.
Nothing. This is the marriage of Patient & Naive Good Faith and Political Correctness.
I think the USA should protect its own ships. Other countries can pay tribute
or protect their ships as they think is appropriate. This policy would be a reminder
that protection from global thugs does not come free and that those who castigate
our country for (relatively) aggressive foreign policy will have to make some
hard choices.
Are you still glad that you voted for Obama?
1. G. Clarke wrote:
But this still does not make them our allies, even if it does not convert them to the opposite, our declared enemies. Maybe that is what we need to refer to them as, our “Non-enemies.”
Peter writes: How about just calling them ‘Neutral Countries’?
11. Eppur Si wrote:
As far as Somalia goes, the word “blockade” comes to mind.
Peter writes: As has been pointed out by the military itself, the coast of Somolia is so large, it would require our entire Navy on full-time bloackade duty to effectively block the pirates from leaving port. (Especially since many of them are hidden away in small, isolated coves and not regular, populated working ports.)
What needs to be done is the Navy should protect American flagged ships. (One destroyer escorting a convoy of vessels in each direction into and out of the Red Sea should be sufficient.) Let all other countries do whatever they want to do, be it escort their own vessels or let them be captured and held ransom. Eventually shipping companies will get tired of their ships being targeted and US ships never are, and maybe ‘international consensus’ will finally turn against the pirates?
(I know. Don’t hold my breath.)
14 Terry Gain….yeah, I know.
But I just can’t grasp that they continue to do this and do it and do it….as though the lights are not on, as though we’re not all watching them embarrass themselves…
They absolutely remind me of a little kid who covers their eyes with their hands and then says, “you can’t see me!”
And now today we are informed by the illustrious Homeland Security that we right wingers are now (in print) identified as a central and serious threat to the security of the nation. Review the language of the release…they describe political dissent and then call us dangerous threats.
I guess we shouldn’t expect those who are “duck blind” to comment on the cannibalistic activities of Homeland Security and Janet Napalitano.
And now today we are informed by the illustrious Homeland Security that we right wingers are now (in print) identified as a central and serious threat to the security of the nation.
Everyone who fought in Iraq in order to defeat the terrorists and establish peace is a threat to Obama’s world view that you deal with evil by pretending it doesn’t exist. Or by appeasing it.
The President of the United States has the mentality of a naive 18 year old when it come to the enemies of America but he is Machiavelli when it comes to his domestic opponents. He is too strange for words. As is the phenomenon of his popularity.
“So the gratitude we are to express is gratitude that he didn’t force the worst to happen.”
The fact that apparently Barack Obama did not get in touch with his inner Lyndon B. Johnson and micromanage the incident is deserving of credit. Some national leaders, to their country’s detriment, have been unable to to simply stay out of the way.
“Once again, Ms. Rubin seems to hold out that endless, elusive hope that the Precedent will simply turn in to someone else.”
This is very unlikely to occur. President Obama is a poorly read and shallow individual. And he is too busy to get the time to get his act together. The man is not even close to being ready for prime time. Obama is also a graduate of Harvard University. Sadly, most Americans have been conned into thinking a liberal arts degree from this famous (infamous?) Ivy League institution is worthy of respect.
Get a clue. Obama will never run this country right because he doesn’t know what he is doing. He is a puppet. The true POTUS is Soros.
Now you can worry.
No.
Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes….
Sooooo….IF I had my formative years in an Indonesian Madrasa…IF I had a mother who was at best times flaky and at worst a bed (and continent) hopping tart….IF my father-figure mentor fled the mainland in the 1940s due to his Communist, subversive activities…IF my actual father abandoned me shortly after birth and then died driving drunk…IF the man who married me and baptized my kids used the words “US of KKK”…IF I wouldn’t know the difference between a W-2 and my arsehole…I suppose I would hate America, too.