NYT: A Very Liberal Intervention

[dennis4868]

By ROSS DOUTHAT
In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

This way of war has obvious advantages. It spreads the burden of military action, sustains rather than weakens our alliances, and takes the edge off the world’s instinctive anti-Americanism. Best of all, it encourages the European powers to shoulder their share of responsibility for maintaining global order, instead of just carping at the United States from the sidelines.

The entire editorial is here....http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. We love Harvard!

:loveya:

[David__77]

2. Liberal just like the Vietnam war.

LBJ's war - his crowning achievement.

[dennis4868]

4. That was not very liberal....

but Johnson is treated like a god here at DU.....

[David__77]

5. Sure, it was about protecting Vietmanese human rights from the Viet Cong.

It was a humanitarian mission started by liberals and championed by them. It was Nixon who abandoned the Vietnamese to the wolves, right?

[dennis4868]

6. I agree but didn't Johnson....

lied us into that war? If I am wrong, please let me know....he sort of did it the George Bush way....right?

[woofless]

8. You're wrong.

Johnson inherited the VietNam situation. What he DID do was escalate our involvement but he did not start it.

[dennis4868]

10. So you are saying Kennedy....

started the vietnam war? Interesting take....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

9. He sure did. The Gulf of Tonkin?? n/t

[dennis4868]

11. That's what I thought....

but there are a certain % of DUers that treat him like a god and will never blame Johnson for anything....even a war that he lied us into....I am suprised they are not blaming Obama for the vietnam war - instead they blame Kennedy....hahaha!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Of course. n/t

[Kucinich Feingold]

12. That more for his work on War On Poverty and Civil Rights

Hell, if it weren't for the war, LBJ would rank in the top ten of presidents list by historians.

[jenmito]

3. K&R up to 0...

not surprisingly. Some people just insist on comparing Obama's multilateral approach to helping the Libyan people to Bush's unilateral invasion of Iraq based on lies.

[stevenleser]

7. K&R - Another well stated posit on the situation.

I think it telling that those against the war have so far used the most hasty generalizations and worst logic imaginable in their arguments. They cannot point to issues specific to this action to justify their objections. That to me speaks volumes.

[oberliner]

16. FYI - This is an Op-Ed by a right-winger critical of Obama's handling of Libya

Read it all the way through, if you haven't already.

[stevenleser]

17. Hmmm, good catch. I only had read what the OP posted.

The rest is typical RW drivel.

The irony is, Obama's critics on the left dont even give him partial credit for anything on this.

[oberliner]

18. Obama can't win, it seems

Certainly not with the RW crowd, but frequently not with the left side either.

It's a wonder he is still so popular with the masses!

[hulka38]

14. NYT - shit track record on the necessity of war. n/t

[Keith Bee]

15. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634185