OBAMAWORLD

One thing has become abundantly clear ... Obama has no idea what he is doing. For weeks, he failed to take any sort of leadership role on the increasing humanitarian crisis in Libya. Progressives will tell you that this was Obama's plan all along - that Obama wanted to hem and haw and hope that some other country or international organization stepped up to fill the void. This would take the pressure off the United States and wouldn't make it look like the evil hegemonic nation that is has come to be known as. This is what you get when you put an inexperienced, community organizing, Marxist-leaning hack in the White House and expect him to uphold the ideals of this nation. Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph says that this is a troubling direction for the US:

Obama's foreign policy is really perfectly consistent with the goals of his domestic policy. His object is to turn the US into a European-style social democracy complete with hugely expensive welfare provision and a federal healthcare programme: a country where security and universal provision of services is the first priority. What he was saying to Europe was: you have relied on our defence cover to spare yourselves the cost of military spending and that allowed you to lavish benefits and public services on your populations. It's our turn now. The great threat from Soviet power is gone, so we are going home to tend our own fire.

Also, the last-minute turn-on-a-dime decision making on Libya indicates that Barack Obama does not have a real strategy for handling world affairs. Why would he? He never had to have a strategy for balancing his own check book much less foreign policy. Instead, Barack Obama seems content to let the rest of the world do the dictating and only react when absolutely necessary. Is this what you call leadership? And one other question to consider from this McClatchy article: "While the Iraq war and the Libya crisis differ fundamentally in many ways, the question now, according to outside experts, is whether Obama's multilateral approach will turn out any better than Bush's unilateralism."

---