Currently viewing the tag: “peace”
This is the latest in a series of exclusive interviews with Dr. Paul Kengor, professor at Grove City College, on his latest work, Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, which is based on a remarkable volume of declassified materials from Soviet and Communist Party USA archives and FBI files. Dinesh D’Souza calls Dupes “a significant addition to our historical understanding of the past hundred years.” Big Peace’s Peter Schweizer calls it the “21st century equivalent” to Whittaker Chambers’ classic Witness.
Big Peace: Professor Kengor, based on Dupes and other books, especially two books on Ronald Reagan (click here and here), plus the fact you teach Middle East politics, you have some very interesting material for us on Moammar Gaddafi and Libya, especially concerning the Carter and Reagan years.
Kengor: We might begin with Gaddafi’s role in the “Anti-Sadat Steadfastness and Confrontation Front,” where (in 1978) he allied with the worst dictators in calling for the head of Anwar Sadat for Sadat’s crime of talking to Israel. Also during this period, Egypt had turned away from the USSR, symbolized by Sadat expelling thousands of Soviet military advisers. The Soviets looked for other clients in the region. They focused on the two Baathist regimes, Assad’s Syria and Saddam’s Iraq, and also Gaddafi’s Libya. All three flirted with a weird admixture of Arab nationalism and socialism. Libya would get, among other things, Soviet MiGs.
Big Peace: When the Carter years arrived, some odd things happened between the United States and Libya.
Kengor: I’ll focus on two. The first involved President Carter’s brother, Billy. Billy Carter was a rube, a colorful, beer-swilling, good ‘ol boy, renowned for branding his own “Billy Beer.” That was innocent enough. But Billy ended up an “agent” to the Libyans, with whom he was close. He played a distinct foreign-policy role as a liaison between the White House and Libya over our hostages in Iran, and did so—brace yourselves—with the support of not only the president but the first lady and even national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Big Peace: This hasn’t been mentioned in recent reporting on Libya. When did we first learn about this?
Kengor: The story broke in late July 1980. I’ll quote an AP piece at the time: “President Carter’s national security advisor [Brzezinski] capitalized on Billy Carter’s controversial relations with the Libyan government by using him as a go-between in seeking Libya’s assistance in an effort to gain release of the American hostages in Iran, White House officials say.” This was rightly reported as a “revelation.” That same story noted that Billy Carter had “reluctantly registered with the Justice Department last week as an agent of the Libyan government.”
Big Peace: And the White House confirmed this?
Kengor: Absolutely—and added details. The president press secretary, Jody Powell, said Brzezinski asked Billy to set up a meeting with Ali el-Houderi, Libya’s chief representative in Washington. That meeting took place November 27, 1979.
Adding a sense of scandal, the press reported that Billy received $ 220,000 from the Libyans, which, as the AP noted, “Billy Carter and the Libyans have characterized as part of a $ 500,000 loan.”
Big Peace: Wow. Did any of this help with the hostages in Iran?
Kengor: The press reported that Brzezinski was informed that Gaddafi “had sent a message” to the Ayatollah calling for the hostages’ release. Perhaps. Obviously, though, they weren’t released.
Big Peace: President Carter knew about this?
Kengor: That crucial question was raised during an August 4, 1980 White House press conference, where President Carter acknowledged that he “decided to use Billy to see if he [Billy] could have some special influence to get the Libyans to help.” It’s striking today to read the formal transcript of this bizarre press conference, which is in Carter’s Presidential Papers. Three-quarters of the questions concerned Billy’s involvement with the Libyan government and some “oil plan.” You need to see it to believe it. Here’s an excerpted transcript:
Q: Mr. President, you said in the report that you issued tonight — you confirmed the fact that your wife, Rosalynn Carter, was the first person to initiate the idea of using your brother Billy as the contact regarding the Iranian hostages ——
The President: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: ———- that she called him directly and then informed you later, and you asked Dr. Brzezinski to pursue the matter. I want to ask you what you think that says about her role in this administration and what the public should conclude about it? And secondly … whether you have any second thoughts in hindsight about family diplomacy and the virtues of that?
The President: No, I don’t have any trepidation about continuing the policy that I have pursued in that respect. I think it’s completely appropriate for Rosalynn to have thought about how we could get the hostages released and to have called Billy to see if he thought he could possibly help. When he said that he might be able to help, she informed me of that idea. I considered it. I’m the one that made the decision, not my wife or Dr. Brzezinski or anyone else. And I decided that it was a good idea….
So this kind of thing that a president’s family legitimately ought to be able to do.
President Carter harbored no trepidation about deploying Billy, or involving the first lady. He said it was “completely appropriate.” One wonders what the Iranians thought. I bet the Ayatollah raised an eyebrow.
Big Peace: And the plot thickens. You say that even the Romanians got ideas?
Kengor: Possibly. Romania was run by the most brutal Communist Bloc dictator, Nicolai Ceausescu. According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, chief of Romanian intelligence, Ceausescu paid close attention to Billy Carter’s peculiar diplomatic service. Pacepa recalls conversations with Ceausescu about recruiting Billy Carter as a Romanian agent. He considered how to make that happen through Libyan officials. The Romanian tyrant saw Billy as primed for manipulation. And considering Ceausescu’s view of the gullibility of Jimmy Carter, he must have seen Billy, the backwoods brother, as an ideal dupe.
Big Peace: This is all quite remarkable. Let’s address the other significant thing with Libya during the Carter years, which you believe holds key lessons. Tell us about the Gulf of Sidra.
Kengor: I write about this in a piece for USA Today, which is co-authored with Bill Clark, the single most important player in Reagan’s take-down strategy against the Soviets. I’m Clark’s biographer. The biography, The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand. Please buy the book, and learn about a national hero who’s still doing good work. Clark was acting secretary of state when the Gulf of Sidra crisis hit.
The Gulf of Sidra is off the North African coast in the Mediterranean, one of the world’s most travelled waterways. Each year, our Sixth Fleet conducted naval exercises in these waters, without dispute.
All of that suddenly changed when Gaddafi unilaterally extended Libya’s presence some 200 miles deep into the gulf, far beyond its 12-mile coastal limit—and putting it off limits to America. This was flatly illegal.
Big Peace: You say the Carter administration didn’t challenge this?
Kengor: The Carter administration rescheduled and relocated U.S. exercises. Apparently, the administration feared provoking Gaddafi, and also, I imagine, feared jeopardizing Libyan assistance with our hostages in Iran. Whatever the reason, it was a significant show of weakness, especially given everything else going on. We were losing key allies to communism. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and were picking up satellites everywhere. We lost the Shah. We were losing the Cold War and getting beat up in the Middle East.
Big Peace: This is where the Reagan administration comes in. You say that Reagan refused to be bullied by Gaddafi and his clowns.
Kengor: Reagan refused to reschedule and relocate U.S. military exercises. He pledged to resume them, then and there, in the Gulf of Sidra. He knew this could lead to a military exchange. When the commanding officer asked Reagan if U.S. aircraft had the right to retaliate against Libyan aircraft, Reagan emphatically said “yes.” When asked how far our aircraft could pursue Libyan planes, Reagan replied: “All the way into the hangar.”
It was a new day in Washington.
Big Peace: In the USA Today piece, you and Clark write that it never got as far as the hangar.
Kengor: Correct. In August 1981, one year after that Carter press conference, ironically, two Libyan planes fired missiles at two F-14 Tomcats escorting our ships. They missed. Our planes fired back, and the two Libyan planes found themselves in the Mediterranean.
That’s how you deal with Gaddafi.
Big Peace: You mean with military power?
Kengor: Yes and no. Military power certainly worked then and also in April 1986, when we acted against Libya unilaterally, without seeking approval from the “international community.” The French literally stood in our way.
I believe the lesson is not necessarily that a commander-in-chief must fire the guns, but he must not waffle and must maintain a clear sense of purpose. We’re not seeing that in Obama, nor did we in Carter. We saw it in Reagan.
Look, this is a complicated situation in Libya right now. I agree. But the commander-in-chief can’t be confused, or appear confused. He can’t send mixed signals. Here again, history speaks to us. Know your history. Read books, and not just the latest TV ticker interrupted every five minutes by another Viagra commercial.
Politico’s Matt Wuerker illustrates the funding disparity between the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Institute of Peace:
Despite a budget of only $ 44 million, a small fraction of the costs of the Tomahawks fired by the U.S. in the first few hours of Operation Odyssey Dawn, there have been calls to eliminate USIP entirely.
via Laura Rozen
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday went to great pains illustrating the similarities between President Obama's Libya address to the nation and his December 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Not surprisingly, the devout dove suddenly turned hawk chose not to discuss the irony (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW: Whether or not you like this intervention in Libya, it is clear that the President's explanation for why it is justified matches what he said he would do with military force, what he would see as the justifiable use of the U.S. military. It is clear that it matches what he said about that issue at the very start of his presidency, when in his first year as president he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.
Maddow then played a clip from that acceptance speech back in December 2009, and a part of Monday’s address containing some similar language and concepts, after which she continued:
MADDOW: 2009, “America cannot act alone.” 2011, “The burden of action should not be America’s alone.” Whether you are for or against American participation in an international intervention like this war in Libya, it is the type of intervention that this president said at the outset he would favor as president. As for the differences between him and the previous guy, as for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq.
So, rather than point out the hypocrisy not only in Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize months before he expanded the war in Afghanistan and started a new one in Libya, but also in these speeches having any similarity at all, she instead made the case that such likeness was a good thing while taking the opportunity to bash Bush.
Truth be told, we have entered a new era in liberal media bias when doves are growing talons before our very eyes.
Let's understand that we have absolutely no idea how this incursion is going to turn out for America, Libya, or this region. This is complicated by our very involvement in humanitarian military missions in the past being by no means without their disappointments and casualties.
Despite this, devout, military-hating leftists have lost the ability and/or the desire to express any skepticism concerning this legislatively un-sanctioned mission.
Like her colleague Ed Schultz, it appears Maddow's devotion to Obama has trumped all her natural, lifelong anti-war instincts. Between the two of them, the past ten days have been like watching Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders root for the New York Giants.
I can't wait to see what color her pom poms will be tomorrow.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday went to great pains illustrating the similarities between President Obama's Libya address to the nation and his December 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Not surprisingly, the devout dove suddenly turned hawk chose not to discuss the irony (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
RACHEL MADDOW: Whether or not you like this intervention in Libya, it is clear that the President's explanation for why it is justified matches what he said he would do with military force, what he would see as the justifiable use of the U.S. military. It is clear that it matches what he said about that issue at the very start of his presidency, when in his first year as president he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.
Maddow then played a clip from that acceptance speech back in December 2009, and a part of Monday’s address containing some similar language and concepts, after which she continued:
MADDOW: 2009, “America cannot act alone.” 2011, “The burden of action should not be America’s alone.” Whether you are for or against American participation in an international intervention like this war in Libya, it is the type of intervention that this president said at the outset he would favor as president. As for the differences between him and the previous guy, as for the differences between him and George W. Bush, defined sharply tonight at one point in his speech in terms of why the U.S. would not make it the goal of our war in Libya to topple the dictator there, a la Iraq.
So, rather than point out the hypocrisy not only in Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize months before he expanded the war in Afghanistan and started a new one in Libya, but also in these speeches having any similarity at all, she instead made the case that such likeness was a good thing while taking the opportunity to bash Bush.
Truth be told, we have entered a new era in liberal media bias when doves are growing talons before our very eyes.
Let's understand that we have absolutely no idea how this incursion is going to turn out for America, Libya, or this region. This is complicated by our very involvement in humanitarian military missions in the past being by no means without their disappointments and casualties.
Despite this, devout, military-hating leftists have lost the ability and/or the desire to express any skepticism concerning this legislatively un-sanctioned mission.
Like her colleague Ed Schultz, it appears Maddow's devotion to Obama has trumped all her natural, lifelong anti-war instincts. Between the two of them, the past ten days have been like watching Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders root for the New York Giants.
I can't wait to see what color her pom poms will be tomorrow.
At the Times, when it comes to affixing blame for stymied peace negotiations, Israel predictably ends up as the guilty party.
American Thinker Blog
The mask drops yet again, but no one in the West will particularly notice or care, as always. “Abbas adds a new condition for “peace”: Release all terrorists!,” from Elder of Ziyon, March 26 (thanks to Inexion):
Mahmoud Abbas, that intransigent leader that the world considers “moderate,” had added another condition for “peace” with Israel:
Abbas now demands that Israel release every single Palestinian Arab prisoner.
This includes, of course, the most heinous terrorists – those that have murdered and slaughtered Israelis – that have been captured by Israel. Abbas is not distinguishing between prisoners with “blood on their hands” and those who merely planned or facilitated terror attacks.
Abbas is saying that peace depends on Israel releasing murderers. Not only that, he is implicitly threatening to support terrorism against Israel until every last of those prisoners are released.
Mahmoud Abbas, that intransigent leader that the world considers “moderate,” had added another condition for “peace” with Israel:
Abbas now demands that Israel release every single Palestinian Arab prisoner.
This includes, of course, the most heinous terrorists – those that have murdered and slaughtered Israelis – that have been captured by Israel. Abbas is not distinguishing between prisoners with “blood on their hands” and those who merely planned or facilitated terror attacks.
Abbas is saying that peace depends on Israel releasing murderers. Not only that, he is implicitly threatening to support terrorism against Israel until every last of those prisoners are released.
Yet this Orwellian doublethink, that Israel must reward murderers and release terrorists in order to gain “peace,” will not register as anomalous at all in the world’s media.
Palestinian Arab leaders have learned that no matter how outrageous their demands, they will be treated with deference and respect.
There is sad news to report … Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman Vice Presidental candidate to run on a major party ticket has died at the age of 75. According to reports, Ferraro passed away from complications from multiple myeloma that she has fought for many years. She passed away at Massachusetts General Hospital surrounded by her family. Our prayers go out to her family, may she rest in peace.
Rest in Peace
Geraldine A. Ferraro, who earned a place in history in 1984 as the first woman to run on a major party national ticket for vice president, has died. She was 75-years-old.
Ferraro, who was born in Newburgh, New York, passed away today at Massachusetts General Hospital while surrounded by her loved ones, a statement from her family read.
The cause of death was complications from multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that she had battled for twelve years, her family said.
Geraldine Ferraro is most famously known for being the first female to be a VP candidate on a major party ticket. Before there was Sarah Palin, there was Geraldine Ferraro who was Walter Mondale’s VP candidate who faced Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1984 election. She broke the glass ceiling of the old boys network of having a man on both the top and bottom of the ticket. However, it would not be until 2008, some 24 years later before another woman would be named as a VP choice. Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page regarding the passing of Geraldine Ferraro.
My family and I would like to express our sincere condolences to the family of Geraldine Ferraro. When I had the honor of working alongside Geraldine on election night last year, we both discussed the role of women in politics and our excited expectation that someday that final glass ceiling would be shattered by the election of a woman president.
More from CNN, “Geraldine Anne Ferraro Zaccaro was widely known as a leader, a fighter for justice, and a tireless advocate for those without a voice.
Family statement via The Hill:
“To us, she was a wife, mother, grandmother and aunt, a woman devoted to and deeply loved by her family. Her courage and generosity of spirit throughout her life waging battles big and small, public and personal, will never be forgotten and will be sorely missed.”
There is sad news to report … Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman Vice Presidental candidate to run on a major party ticket has died at the age of 75. According to reports, Ferraro passed away from complications from multiple myeloma that she has fought for many years. She passed away at Massachusetts General Hospital surrounded by her family. Our prayers go out to her family, may she rest in peace.
Rest in Peace
Geraldine A. Ferraro, who earned a place in history in 1984 as the first woman to run on a major party national ticket for vice president, has died. She was 75-years-old.
Ferraro, who was born in Newburgh, New York, passed away today at Massachusetts General Hospital while surrounded by her loved ones, a statement from her family read.
The cause of death was complications from multiple myeloma, a blood cancer that she had battled for twelve years, her family said.
Geraldine Ferraro is most famously known for being the first female to be a VP candidate on a major party ticket. Before there was Sarah Palin, there was Geraldine Ferraro who was Walter Mondale’s VP candidate who faced Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1984 election. She broke the glass ceiling of the old boys network of having a man on both the top and bottom of the ticket. However, it would not be until 2008, some 24 years later before another woman would be named as a VP choice. Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page regarding the passing of Geraldine Ferraro.
My family and I would like to express our sincere condolences to the family of Geraldine Ferraro. When I had the honor of working alongside Geraldine on election night last year, we both discussed the role of women in politics and our excited expectation that someday that final glass ceiling would be shattered by the election of a woman president.
More from CNN, “Geraldine Anne Ferraro Zaccaro was widely known as a leader, a fighter for justice, and a tireless advocate for those without a voice.
Family statement via The Hill:
“To us, she was a wife, mother, grandmother and aunt, a woman devoted to and deeply loved by her family. Her courage and generosity of spirit throughout her life waging battles big and small, public and personal, will never be forgotten and will be sorely missed.”
If only.
It’s nice to hear Egypt say they will keep to the peace accord with Israel:
In first officially announced meeting, Cairo’s foreign minister says peace is secure, expresses need for “justice, peace” in Gaza.
Egypt’s foreign minister told an Israeli official on Thursday that Cairo was committed to its international treaties, Egypt’s foreign ministry said, reiterating that the countries’ peace accord is secure.
It was the first publicly announced meeting between an Egyptian and an Israeli official since Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was toppled from power on Feb. 11 and handed power to the military.
But just how committed is it?
Photoonist at Lucianne.com describes a simple scenario where Egypt will dump the peace accord with Israel:
This is what could happen: Repeated attacks from Gaza become more massive until a children’s school or hospital is destroyed with massive casualties. Israel can no longer restrain its actions and launches a hugely destructive mission against the Gazan terrorists (and the people who had celebrated in the streets). Egypt, its military having long made deals with the Muslim Bro. by then, announces that Israel’s actions abrogate all treaties Egypt has with them. And that’s the end of that, and the beginning.
Let’s face it: neither the scenario in Gaza nor Egypt’s reaction to it are far-fetched.
Israel’s cold peace with Egypt has be replaced with a very tenuous one.
Egypt’s Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby was quoted on the general need for “justice and comprehensive peace”. On the issue of Gaza he said that Egypt had a “firm position on the need to take into consideration the humanitarian issues and holds Israel responsible for them as an occupying force.”
Already, Egypt has established 2 excuses for breaking off relations with Israel: intransigence in the peace process and the issue of Gaza.
How long do you give this rediscovered peace between Egypt and Israel?
Technorati Tag: Egypt.
As long as there’s no possibility of ground operations, Gaddafi will stand pat.
American Thinker Blog
Reuters reports: Gaddafi’s entourage sends out secret peace feelers.
According to the piece, said overtures include a ceasefire or an exit from the country by Gaddafi.
I will file this one under “I will believe it, when I see it.”
But, I suppose, one can hope.
The situation ended non-violently, and will be spun by local Muslims as a “peaceful” resolution. Cooperation. Dialogue. Name your buzzword.
This incident is reminiscent of forced “reconciliation” meetings in Egypt where, of course, the Copts get the short end of the stick. It is another of many ways in which, if one supposes there is “no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256), the means of subtle and not-so-subtle coercion — of finding ways to make life difficult, unpleasant, and ultimately dangerous for the subjugated non-Muslim — are still limited only by the overlord’s imagination.
“Christians pressurised into signing so-called ‘peace deal’ with Muslim clerics in Lahore,” from Asian News International, March 24 (thanks to Twostellas):
Lahore, Mar 24 : Muslim clerics and hardliners, who tried to attack a church in Lahore’s landmark Badami Bagh, have agreed to avoid doing so on a condition that the church authorities would suspend its activities, especially at the time when Muslims living in the area offer prayers.
The “peace deal” was reached through the efforts of the Badami Bagh Police Station SHO, who organised a peace committee comprising 14 people- including four Christians and ten Muslims- to settle the matter, the Daily Times reports.
However, local police sources revealed that the peace deal was signed after “posing threats and putting immense pressure on local Christians who simply succumbed to the pressure for being left alive and untouched, hence promising to follow the SHO’s and the peace committee’s directions”.
“It was quite ironic that the same people, who were members of the peace committee, also led mobs against Christians, one of them being a cleric Zubair from Madina Mosque, who called on local Muslims to unite and attack the church over accusations that the church had deliberately burnt papers containing Quranic verses, which were found on a nearby garbage heap on Tuesday morning,” they added.
Convenient: they “were found.”
The local people alleged that a Christian in the area kept reciting verses from the Bible while passing through streets, and demanded that he should be barred from doing so in order to ‘ensure peace of mind’ to Muslim residents of the area.
That turn of phrase, intended or not, says a great deal. It makes Muslims’ faith look weak and unstable if they are so threatened and thus so determined to suppress other expressions of faith.
Meanwhile, Christian representatives in the peace committee told the newspaper that they were very happy with the decision of the committee and local police authorities, as their on-time intervention had avoided a big chaos.
What would happen if they said they weren’t happy?
Christians would never want to come into a conflict with their Muslim brothers, as they believed in peace and harmony as per Christ’s saying of “putting the second cheek forward if somebody slaps you on the first,” they added.
In citing this verse, there may be a subtle criticism of the Muslims’ behavior, setting up a contrasting picture of how the religions’ respective scriptures tell them to behave. For that matter, there is no “Meccan” or “Medinan” period in Christanity, no abrogation of this verse such that they could behave otherwise once politically strong enough.
The verse they quoted certainly does set the stage for a more stable, civilized society than, say, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
The SHO said that he did not file any cases against the clerics as per the requests of the Christian locals and church leaders, keeping in mind the possibility that such an action could have further instigated the mobs instead of calming them.
He also said that the police was closely monitoring the situation in the area although there were no chances of any riots or violence in the area anymore.
(Scott)
Clifford Orwin brings the rigor of a serious student of political philosophy to his observations on the humanitarian intervention by the United States et al. in Libya: “Humanitarian military interventions such as the one under way in Libya typically face just two main obstacles. The first is, they’re humanitarian. The second is, they’re military interventions.” He seems to think humanitarian military interventions suffer from an internal contradiction, like capitalism according to Marx.
Qaddafi “must go (Barack Obama has said so),” Professor Orwin exlains, “but it’s not the intervention’s aim to remove him. That aim is merely to stop him from doing such terrible things.” But there is a problem correlating means and ends:
That goal is a worthy one. But it can’t be achieved except by removing Col. Gadhafi. Leave a despot in power and you leave him with the power to oppress. And removing him may require more than your typical humanitarian intervention – a war fought at 15,000 feet, or with cruise missiles lobbed from distant warships, without too much danger to the intervenors. No despot has ever been deposed from 15,000 feet.
Because humanitarian intervention is War Lite, it often fails to evoke the resolve that “real” wars do. Yet, because it, too, is war, it, too, requires that resolve. Here, the historical record is clear: To be even partly successful, interventions must feature one determined power, militarily capable and clearly committed, on whom everyone else involved depends to do the heavy lifting. Examples are the U.S. interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Australian one in East Timor and the British one in Sierra Leone. International endorsement merely provided the fig leaf of non-politicality.
Professor Orwin contrasts these with “genuinely multilateral and, therefore, ineffectual interventions.” Which will the Libya venture be? Professor Orwin suggests the latter: “No one has strong enough reasons of their own for intervening in Libya. The strategic interests of each participant lies elsewhere[.]”
Professor Orwin does not take account of the possibility that old-fashioned pride or shame among one of the participants — the United States seems the most likely party — might kick in and convert the operation into “real” war. That would take an assessment of Obama that lies beyond the scope of Professor Orwin’s helpful column. Yet Professor Orwin does add this suggestive observation: “Mr. Obama needs to see that a president shouldn’t stake his political futures on vacillating allies to whom he’s offered the example of his own irresoluteness.”
Via RealClearPolitics.
