Obama, Libya, and Egypt (guess who’s coming to dinner)

March 26, 2011


This gentleman has reduced it to eight principles he says dominate thinking in Democratic circles. I’m not so sure about that, but it may help explain the President.

At the heart of my philosophy of human sociology lies Thomas Hobbes who believed in a state of nature life pretty much is a disaster (nasty, brutish, and short goes the adage). This underlies a lot of Western philosophy regarding social contract. Many people think Locke started all that. He lifted it and modified his theory from that of Hobbes.

But what if you didn’t believe Hobbes was right? What if you thought the exertion of force by nation states was the problem? What if your own country was the worst example of that?

Well, then you’d have our President.

I have said in the past that he thinks the US is the problem, and as such is the first anti-American President (except, perhaps, Carter, and I suppose Jefferson Davis) to hold the office.

Since the President is reluctant to share his philosophy with his subjects we are left to wonder. It’s been a little less than a week since we launched this attack we didn’t lead, although, apparently, we fired all but two of the Tomahawks. Oh, and, by the way 2,200 marines are on the way to the Mediterranean.


In all this time the President hasn’t bothered to explain his decision to the American people. He hasn’t explained why he changed his mind from his young days (three or four years ago) when he felt Presidents didn’t have the authority to unilaterally take military action. I know. We all grow in office.


This President is out of control and is becoming more so. He consults with the Arab League. He consults with the United Nations. He doesn’t bother to consult with Congress. He pushes the button, and then he gets out of Dodge, and then he figures we can “turn over” leadership of this operation to NATO or somebody, anybody, else.

Who exactly is in command of our ships in the Mediterranean? Who are they going to follow orders from? A NATO committee? I rather doubt it. I’m betting they’ll still be taking orders within the US chain of command. So, this “turn over” is a facade. And if we’re turning something over, doesn’t that mean our Secretary of State was lying about our not leading this? If we weren’t leading, precisely what are we turning over?

Oh, and while we’re all watching the birdie over there. take a look at what’s going on in Egypt over here.


The NY Times is awakening to the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is surging in Egypt. Go figure. And not only that we’re discovering they probably had more of a role in the revolution than “anyone’ thought.

“As the best organized and most extensive opposition movement in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood was expected to have an edge in the contest for influence. But what surprises many is its link to a military that vilified it.

“There is evidence the Brotherhood struck some kind of a deal with the military early on,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group.”

As I said then, I know nothing about Egypt, but you didn’t have to be the amazing Kreskin to see what was going on.

While Kristof was being exhilarated in Cairo. . .


. . . he might have given some thought to those armed men who manned every intersection he drove through his “old neighborhood.” Again, who did he think these people were? Maybe, he should have brought a journalist along to ask them. There was only one force outside the military and the police capable of organizing these men. Everyone knew who it was. Why didn’t anyone report it?

If you haven’t thrown up yet, then you can read his follow-up about what Egypt can teach America


Okay, before I sign off, I love this line from the NY Times article.

“It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.”

The useful idiots are gone, but the Times wistfully hopes they might come back. Or maybe, the Brotherhood really isn’t that bad. I hear they’re secular.

How many years did Churchill rail against the Storm before Septermber 1, 1939?

We don’t even have a Churchill yet.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s