Obama will speak tonight in order to say nothing about Libya - what will he not be saying in this speech? Trying to be funny, not working. Can't talk about regime change as a military objective cause that obligates or infers troops on the ground - will encourage 'Libyans' to take matters into their own hands. Will consequently stress repeatedly with florid emotionalism how this is an humanitarian effort - will not address how far this humanitarianism goes should Libyans, taking matters into own hands, in an orgiastic display of tribal vengeance start killing each other with great abandon once [if] Qaddafi goes bye bye - will cover up absence of answer to that question with soaring rhetoric. Will probably repeat several times that American troops will not be hitting ground - so will have to make clear - or I imagine will try and make clear that UK, France, UN are responsible for aftermath [unless they've already all agreed to push the "it's up to Libyans now to settle their own future" line] - most interesting part of speech will probably be how he goes about trying to shift responsibility for aftermath as far away from the US military as possible [and of course should he waffle on troops on the ground and responsibilities etc etc that too would be quite revealing] - think he's dreaming here, but will be interesting to see how he tries to frame argument of America bearing no responsibility beyond the humanitarian intention - don't think he can go beyond intention, can he? - anything else implies too much commitment - but again that's a pipe dream. He'll talk about American values etc etc and thereby try and summon some kind of ethical imperative - but that's to play a very dangerous game that will probably backfire hugely - tying American vital interests arbitrarily to humanitarian imperatives that can only have American sourced military solutions but still must be sanctioned by the loathsome legitimacy of the UN is to invite serious complications down the road - but as a liberal not impossible he would see that as a good thing. Will heap much praise on coalition partners [this will be a trap ie shifting responsibilities] but will have to do so without intimating a 'mission accomplished' moment.
So, in short, obfuscation, pandering to a false and as far as I'm concerned dangerous moralistic, multilateralist idealism and subtle [or possibly not so subtle] responsibility shifting. The word 'war' will not be mentioned, at least not in reference to Libya - implies commitment and responsibility. If the greatest gift a politician can have is the ability to tell a self serving yet convincing lie under difficult circumstances, then I imagine Obama's talents will be on full display tonight.
[I wonder if between the lines we will be able to read the why and wherefore of this mission - unlikely, the thing will be thoroughly scrubbed free of unintended messages - so all the big questions will remain, why, why so slow, what will 'success' look like, is this really a legitimate use of American military might since your own Secretary of Defense has admitted Libya is not a vital interest of the US, and assuming a post Qaddafi world, how do you see that actually working without a strong US presence? And if it doesn't work, what then?
As for the why, one begins to believe that this is a result of Clinton, Powers and Rice convincing Obama that a new age is upon us, a brave new world wherein the American military will be consigned to servitude under the enlightened auspices of the UN for the purposes of doing good everywhere - an essay published today by French philosopher Bernard Levy that states he convinced Sarkozy of essentially that very thing and that is why we're in Libya seems to lend credence to this belief. Certainly, the UK and France very early, unreasonably early committed to military intervention even though such intervention was absolutely impossible without American participation - so were they trying to pressure Obama? Did they see him as an easy mark? Or were they encouraged to apply such pressure on the hapless Obama by Rice et al? If it turns out American foreign policy is being driven by a deluded French philosopher then Obama should be impeached without delay, he's verging on 'worse than Carter' territory if such is the case. And already we see the pathetic consequences of it: Turkey has decided they now very much want to be part of the coalition - why? you may ask They see Qaddafi going down, they see a power vacuum, they see themselves and Iran filling it. Pure and simple - and no doubt they reason that should this humanitarian effort seem successful that will enfeeble the American military, they'll be chained to it, chained to the UN - you don't want French philosophers running your foreign policy - unless of course it's your desire to be fucked up the ass]
