Obama's Most Glaring Contradiction Ever Posted by Michael Cohen

I've really gone back and forth on this question of whether it was right to intervene in Libya (and I think Marc Lynch makes perhaps the most persuasive case for intervention here). 

Those of us who are skeptical of intervention have to grapple with the fact that not acting could have led to a terrible civilian massacre, which appears to have been averted. On the other hand those who endorse intervention have been too far triumphalist about the use of force and the explicit morality of acting (and the implicit immorality of not getting involved).

However, I think the one argument that perhaps is getting too much attention is the question of whether we are demonstrating a double standard by intervening in Libya and not intervening in Cote d'Ivorie or Bahrain or Syria etc. I think the President tackled this issue well last night:

Some question why America should intervene at all - even in limited ways - in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.

Given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

This is absolutely correct. Generally speaking I tend to think consistency is a bit of an overrated concept in foreign affairs - and Libya is a good example of why. The decision to intervene in Libya should rely not on whether it can be replicated elsewhere or whether it represents a double standard . . . but quite simply and almost exclusively on whether it's the right to intervene in Libya. That's it.

If we determine that we can make a difference in a positive way; that intervention furthers US interests (a debatable concept on Libya) and that our engagement will be minimal (also debatable) those are the most important pieces of evidence - not the places or conflicts in which we are not getting involved. And while there are reasons to be concerned that this action creates a dangerous precedent (a point I argued here) that isn't necessarily a reason not to act. 

So having said all that I'm really troubled by arguments like these:

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

You know what's weird; this was the next paragraph in Obama's speech last night.

The very notion that those who didn't want to act are turning a "blind eye to atrocities" or that reluctance to engage is a betrayal of who we are as a people is not only a ridiculous strawman that minimizes the concerns of those who oppose intervention . . it is directly contradicted by Obama's own words.

If someone accused the Obama Administration of betraying the people of Cote d'Ivorie for turning a blind eye to oppression and betraying our values . . . I would imagine they would point to the earlier two paragraphs to make the argument that the US can't be everywhere. How about if the Bush Administration had accused private citizen of Barack Obama of turning his back on American values by not supporting the Iraq War and the liberation of the Iraqi people? Same thing.

So why then use this absurd rhetoric to attack the opponents of intervention in Libya? Did really no one in the White House speechwriting shop flag this inherent contradiction?

You know I'm trying very hard to be supportive of this intervention but when the White House trots out arguments like this that dismiss those of us who are skeptical about the use of force - and embraces absolutist rhetoric on intervention Libya that suggests the US had no choice but to act . . . well it isn't helping.

Comments

[David Shorr]

I see the problem.

[Mark Lindeman]

Interesting.

To me, it sounds more like Obama is explaining the balance of considerations in his own mind than trying to smack down people who were "reluctant" to intervene, or even those who oppose the intervention -- although I'm definitely curious how that passage turned out the way it did.

You seem to be more or less disregarding the words "under such circumstances" in the latter paragraph, but they seem important to the argument.

[jordansworld]

Cheap Jordan Shoes hold the heel Air-Sole unit which provides structure and also stability intended for enhanced medial assistance. The energetic cushioning manufactured to provide each seller with extraordinary impact defense. They are very useful and also helpful for you to wear as they quite simply can process shocks while playing challenging sports for instance basketball or even running. Pertaining to their multifunction design, Air Jordan 2011 are comfortable welcomed by large numbers of sports lovers. Quality will be guaranteed, but value is considerably more attractive in comparison with before, I'm certain you can like these people. If you might have any interest in high quality new Jordan shoes but don't want to pay money much income, it can be a wise choice for you to purchase endorsed nike shoes inside our store.Top quality, excellent products and competing price are waiting for you!

[冷夜]

for you to wear as they quite simply can process shocks while playing challenging sports for instance basketball or even running. Pertaining to their multifunction design, Air Jordan 2011 are comfortable welcomed by large numbers of sports lovers. Quality will be guaranteed, but value is considerably more attractive in comparison with before, I'm certain you can like these people. If yo

[goodwatches]

Your blog article is very intersting and fanstic,at the same time the blog theme is unique and perfect,great job.To your success.

[url=http://blogtext.org/goodwatches]goodwatches[/url]
goodwatches

[signwatch]

I am totally agree with your oppinion.this blog post is very encouraging to people who want to know these topics.

[batteries-man]

I have gain a big stuff of information from. It was very informative and I look forward to reading more of them from you!

[lilly]

mulberry bags
mulberry handbags
mulberry
demo

[Rainboots Canada 86]

It is a kind of rain boot that makes ur life beautiful and useful…i will keep ur feet dry all the time even the rainy days,but u will still look fashion in that rain boots.

The freedom to get messy and the pleasure of finding your shoes clean and dry, and ready to go is upon you with the hunter rain boots. This women’s boot has a 100% waterproof stretch inner bootie that reduces friction points while hand laid layers of waterproof natural rubber keeps you absolutely dry and comfortable in the most uncomfortable of conditions. This pandora boot has the hunter rain boots canada perfect fit that doesn’t need breaking in. Bogs static cold tests all of their boots to ensure that you’ll be warm and cozy even in sub-zero temperatures. The tread of the non-slip sole is designed to kick away dirt so that you always have excellent traction. Take on bad weather and dirty jobs with the rain boots canada!

[goodwatches]

it is good
watch5
whowatch
watchse
uwatch
Uwatch
iwatch
needwatch
watcheslife
livewatch