Monday, April 04, 2011


I have a theory.  I may not be the only person to hold it, but I haven't seen it put out there as a serious question yet.

People on the right and the left are questioning Obama's excursion into Libya.  Why a new war in a country that just about everyone admits isn't one of our "vital interests"?  Why a war against this tyrant when a war against Saddam Hussein was villified?  Why wasn't Congress consulted, even if the U.N. wanted it?

Well I think one theory wraps it up pretty nicely.

It was a calculated campaign move.   A dumb one, to be sure.  And one that may cost him the election he hoped it would help him win.

I know this sounds cynical, but consider who we are talking about here. He's a big ego, a giant projected hologram. The big show is what it's all about. And winning is everything.

See, the way I figure it, Obama saw an opportunity to launch a U.N. sanctioned war  that would be quick, decisive, likely to have very few American casualties, and remove a dictator.  This would be used to contrast with the previous leadership which "took us" to two wars without U.N. Security Coucil approval and thus "illegal" by "world" standards, and wars which cost American lives and were ugly and bloody and long, and of course fought for oil and profit. And unlike Bush's, this one would be an obvious success.  This is how to run a war.   I am strong, efficient, humanitarian, and most of all, a strong and worthy Commander in Chief. 

Vote for me.

His clever “exit strategy”, especially if it all goes bad is to “hand it over” to NATO. Only NATO is us.

The Dems will try to convince us it’s not. I don’t think it’ll work. The glitter of the golden tongue has worn off. If Khadaffi stays, Obama looks bad. If he goes and the regime is Islamist or lawless and/or there’s mass slaughter by the victors… Obama looks bad.

If it’s replaced by anything even sort of like a Western Democracy, Obama might save face if it doesn’t take too long. Anybody taking bets?

Mine is that this was a bad calculation that will do him in in the end.


Severian said...

Gosh, Phil, you sound as if you believe our Glorious Leader is a naive, ill-educated ideologue with absolutely no meaningful experience whatsoever.

Where on earth did you get that idea?

[rolls eyes to avoid weeping from frustration]

philmon said...

I read one of his books. :-)

Anonymous said...

Dreams of my Blather?


The Audacity of Hoke?

:) Mark the wonder geek

Cylarz said...

With this president, cynicism is a requirement. It's our only defense mechanism against being disappointed with his leadership. Again.

tim said...

‘Tis all a bit curious. The massive anti-war demonstrations have been fun to watch though…no, wait…I almost forgot, he’s a democrat.

Well, at least he didn’t break any campaign promises…oh shit…I’m RELLY trying here…

Yeah, I wonder who’s playing the weekly Tuesday night concert at the WH tonight. I need a break form all the war coverage, the innocent civilians being killed, the baby milk factories being blown up, the hyperventilating reporters declaring it a quagmire…

philmon said...

"The vice which afflicts the right is cynicism, and that which afflicts the left is deceit" - Don Colacho