Last Updated:August 19 @ 05:46 pm

Brown: Obama’s Lap-doggish Libyan Foreign Policy

By Susan Stamper Brown

Dogs are interesting creatures. This morning while on a walk, one of my dogs broke away from our pack and into the yard of a dog obviously defending her boundaries. After a momentary altercation, tuck-tailed, my dog willingly rejoined our pack - ego broken but a bit wiser – because he not only learned his place, he discovered that sometimes a dog’s bark is just as big as his bite.

With the world’s attention turned to Libya in recent days, I think back to a moment in history when President Ronald Reagan tried to show Moammar Gadhafi, whom he described as “The Mad Dog of the Middle East,” his place in the world’s “pack.” Reagan launched a bombing campaign in Libya in retaliation for the 1986 Berlin night club bombing, but a thick-headed Gadhafi learned nothing and instead claimed himself victorious - because he survived. Soon after, Gadhafi rabidly responded by bombing the Pan American flight over Lockerbie Scotland that killed 270 people, including many Americans.

Gadhafi’s “Mad Dog” image seemingly mellowed until this year when he began losing much of his country to rebels and vowed he’d “die a martyr” before losing power. Hinting that he might finish what Reagan had started, Obama announced that Gadhafi must “step down” - but somewhere between then and now, his fervor waned and intentions changed - when the United Nations’ tail began wagging the dog and Obama committed America to participate from the backseat of a humanitarian air campaign.

Obama genuinely believes that relinquishing America’s “alpha dog” status will make the world a better place. But he’s wrong. There will always be a top dog, so it may as well be America – who has the strength of a pit bull but the personality of a retriever in that we may bite your leg off, but we’ll bring it back and help you sew it on.

The present dilemma we find ourselves in could have been prevented had Obama taken swift and specific measures when Libyan rebels owned the momentum a few weeks back. But, we are where we are - and what began as an emergency action to prevent a potential Benghazi bloodbath has quickly transitioned to committing America’s overstretched military to a third front in a Muslim country, namely – The Libyan War. Opening up a new combat front with no clear strategy or end game, and expecting our troops to do the impossible to protect Libyan citizens from Gadhafi at 30,000 feet above the ground - sounds more like a job for Wonder Dog.

One would hope Obama is spending every waking moment working with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron on a coherent Libyan strategy that includes investigating exactly whom it is we are spending billions of dollars on to protect.

Back in 2007, U.S. Special Operations commandos captured a cache of al Qaeda documents, known as the Sinjar Documents, which were analyzed at West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, finding that 20 percent of the foreign fighters within Iraq came from Libya.

This statistic begs the fair question, is it worth the cost of diverting our military and intelligence assets to assist unvetted rebels who could pose a threat to U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq? Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said the principal difference between a dog and a man is if you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he won’t bite you? How do we separate rebel from Gadhafi loyalist when both claim their actions to be righteous and "for the Libyan people?"

Foreign policy helps us determine a president’s character. Obama currently looks weak, indecisive, sluggish, ingenuous, unprincipled and lap-doggish. Call it what he will, but most of the tomahawk missiles are ours, and as it currently stands, America owns Operation Odyssey Dawn. So we should be in it to win it. We should take the lead to present a clear-cut mission to enact a regime change with an end game. Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be set and we will be expected to fade into the pack and participate in humanitarian intervention crusades across the Middle East.

---

Susan is a motivational speaker and military advocate and can be reached at writestamper@gmail.com her website www.susanstamperbrown.com and Facebook and Twitter.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.8/10 (12 votes cast)
Brown: Obama’s Lap-doggish Libyan Foreign Policy, 9.8 out of 10 based on 12 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

11 Comments

  1. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    March 24, 2011 @ 11:55 am

    Obama and the American people will soon learn that war is not a game of half-hearted measures by half-hearted leaders. Just watch as he gives our troops rules of engagement to only shoot the guns out of the hands of our ememy like Roy Rogers or Gene Autry thinking nobody is going to get killed. Perhaps he’ll have our troops shoot bean bags at the enemy. This is not the time to have a Politically correct kind of President calling the shots. Being Politically correct and Politically hesitant in times of war is a lethal proposition. This Dog has previously too often lifted his leg upon the Concept of American Military dominance. What makes us think he will not continue to do so. That’s our Politically Correct President,,,,,,,fasted leg in the West.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • zingerslingerComment by zingerslinger
      March 24, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

      Although most politicians make decisions soley based on politics, most have the moral integrity to abstain from such behavior when sending our troops into harm’s way.  Based upon his inactions in 2009 (Iran) and then again in Egypt, it is odd that we are dropping bombs in Libya.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  2. Mort_fComment by Mort_f
    March 24, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

    Why does anybody, excuse me John McCain, think that Obama has America’s best interests at heart. Analyze his actions as an incompetent, or anlyze them as a smart person bent on destroying America. See which one makes more sense. Do not limit yourself to Foreign Policy, add Domestic to the mix.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
    • zingerslingerComment by zingerslinger
      March 24, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

      McCain is too much of a gentleman – that’s why he lost in 2008.  He refused to stand up and speak out against Obama.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      March 25, 2011 @ 10:59 am

      If the Republicans trot out one more broken down old war horse Like Dole or McCain, to run against Obama it’s all over in 2012. We need a young articulate Christian of the warrior class to do battle with Obama and the liberals for truth. You will know them by their deeds, you will know them by their fruits, and it is apparent to any 3rd grader that Obama is bent on not only redistributing American wealth to the American poor, but he has a worldwide concept to re-distribute American wealth to the world. He and backdoor Barney Frank threw us into the back seat of the vehicle of state to drive us down the slippery slope of a Brokeback Mountain Fannie May backed “give a derelict a loan” Housing program  that only succeded in breaking the backs of the American Banks, the American housing market and the backs of the American taxpayer. He and is Liberal Progressive Socialist experimentors have succeeded in entralling our children and grandchildren in debt for at least the next 2 generations. Like Rumplestiltskin, they paint you a picture of a golden future,,,,,but in reality it is your unborn child they want, either through debt or abortion.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  3. John E. NevolaComment by John E. Nevola
    March 24, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

    First, with all due respect, I would like to point out that America does not have Commandos.  We employ Special Operations Forces.  “Commando” is a uniquely British term used to identify some elements of their Special Services.  President Roosevelt made the distinction when he approved the formation of America’s counterpart to the Commandos in World War II.  He wanted a uniquely American name (not American Commandos) and that’s how the U.S. Army Rangers, a component of today’s Special Operations Forces, were named!

    Now for President Obama…
    The problem with trying to line up multilateral international agreement and support is that when days count, the results of a committee are usually weeks away.
     More importantly, quick and decisive action taken early in a crisis can have far more impact on the outcome than more costly and weighty solutions applied later. 
     But in order to lead with credibility and conviction, one has to have a cogent foreign policy, a game plan with an exit strategy and a leader who is willing to take action.  He also has to have the ability to convincingly communicate the plan, the reasons for the actions and the desired outcome. 
     To await developments in the midst of the slaughter of innocents is not leadership.  To test which way the wind is blowing before taking action requires no insight or vision whatsoever.  To dither while looking for the perfect solution often squanders that small window of opportunity, which is often the difference between success and failure.
     A leader would have acted immediately and sought agreement later.  From the U.S. Congress, not the United Nations!  In the art and science of leadership, perception is reality.  It’s not this President’s fault that he never had the experience to help him understand the impact of his behavior on both his image and the problems he is supposed to solve.
     It does matter who answers the phone in the White House at 3am and how they respond to those world crises that arise from time to time.  That’s assuming there is actually someone IN the White House and not on the golf course or in Rio.
     The Last Jump – A Novel of World War II
    http://www.thelastjump.com  
    Some proceeds donated to charity.
     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • zingerslingerComment by zingerslinger
      March 24, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

      Our Delta Force has “commandos” does it not?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Mort_fComment by Mort_f
      March 24, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

      ‘comando’ is a generic term, apparently dating back to the Boer Wars. And do note that nearly every country has had commando units, often spelled with a ‘k’. The US military uses the term, generically, and many specialized units fit the definition of ‘commando’. You can start with the US Marines during the War of 1812. Add the descriptors Raiders, Rangers, SEALS, Green Berets, etc.

      The military has always had ‘contingency’ plans. It is one of the primary functions for ‘War games’. I am sure there is even a contingency plan in the event that Canada invades through the Maine woods. A real stretch of the imagination. But this Libyan situation reeks of incompetency. Our war planners should have thought and planned for many contingencies in the Middle East and North Africa. Apparently this has been an ‘ad lib’ operation, else a select group in the Congress should have been involved. Were they?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. ter334Comment by ter334
    March 24, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

    Not sure what she is saying?  9-11 was by Saudis.  Show we have attacked them as well?    Is G a threat to the US?  Is the UN more of a threat to America than almost anyone except the muslim brotherhood?  Why a sudden claim at moral outrage over events  in Libya when theere were massacres in Ruwanda?

    Who is funding and supporting the rebels all ovr the ME?  Someone with a lot of money and a motive.  What feature is common to all the countries under siege in the ME?  None of them have sharia law or have an ayatollah type rvolutionary govt such as in Iran.  And what are the rebels all saying?  We want to change our govt leader?  Hope and change maybe?  And a change to what?  After all these revolutions, Iranian type govts, minus armaggedon of course.  Just because our revolution produced a positive govt does not mean all revolutions will.  Ask the Russians?  Ask the Iranian people if they enjoy no freedom, the result of their rvolution.  We need to know who the playees are, who we are supporting and pretending to be able to stop a slaughter that MIGHT occur is an O trick.  What about the slaughter of unborn babies right here in the US.  This slaughter has been chanpioned by O himself!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • zingerslingerComment by zingerslinger
      March 24, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

      Obama has access to all information.  It makes NO sense that he would defend the rebels without knowing who they are.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  5. IronbearComment by Ironbear
    March 24, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

    Comrade Hussein  Obama is a cur dog who is just as soon unleash his cruise missiles against Tea Partiers as he would against Middle East tyrants. Who is he, to tell anyone to go. Prince Barry should take his a** back to his native Kenya and let us have our Republic back.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (6 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Paul is right. It is better to live free and accept the risks associated with thugs and petty criminals than..." Comment by leonidas
    Posted in Media Blame Police for Race Riots
  • "My initial reaction was to fully support the police- give them whatever they need to put these thugs in place...." Comment by NY Graham
    Posted in Media Blame Police for Race Riots
  • "What is also sad is the folks still seem to believe what the media tells them and have a friend..." Comment by peleus
    Posted in A Dose of Common Sense

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer