It's Not A Major Military Action?

In the opinion pages of the Washington Post Tuesday (here), Dana Milbank penned an article enchantingly titled: Obama’s Quick Trip From Tyrant to Weakling. Surprisingly, Milbank takes Mr. Obama to task (sort of), but of course, cannot resist taking a cheap shot at Mr. Bush, who at last check, has not been President for more than two years, a situation which is not expected to change. Milbank snarkily wrote:

“It was perilously close to George W. Bush’s My-Pet-Goat moment, when then-President Bush continued reading a storybook with children on Sept. 11, 2001, after he was told that the second World Trade Center tower had been hit. Bush later said he was trying to maintain calm; likewise, White House officials tell me the decision to proceed with the South America trip was made in part to convey that the Libya bombardment was not a major military action.”

Milbank’s thesis begins:

“After two years of being called a tyrant and a dictator, President Obama returns to Washington from a five-day overseas trip to find that he has become a weakling.

Would-be opponents such as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin had been trying out this somewhat contradictory line of attack for more than a month, as Obama gave mixed signals about events in Egypt and Libya. But the “weak leader” charge gained traction over the weekend, as Obama chose to launch the attack on Gaddafi’s forces while on an excellent adventure in South America with his family.”

Milbank suggests that Mr. Obama’s trip to Brazil was not so much a matter of weakness but of stubbornness. Mr. Obama, you see, has always been determined not to respond to small, insignificant issues of the day, but to maintain his omnipotent, omniscient focus on much broader, all-encompassing issues. As proof, Milbank cited Mr. Obama’s USA-Today op-ed. Milbank wrote:

“Obama wrote that while the Middle East is important, he was going to Latin America because ‘our top priority has to be creating and sustaining new jobs and new opportunities.’ Not only did the president proceed with his tour, but Vice President Biden went ahead with a reception for Democratic donors.”

Milbank also paraphrased unnamed Obama Administration officials who argued that this was, in fact, a sign of strong leadership. Milbank ends by lamenting the unfairness of it all, and by attacking--sort of--the tyrannical media:

“But it doesn’t matter if the criticism is fair. Obama left a vacuum, and his opponents filled it. For a president suddenly called “weak,” such is the tyranny of the news cycle.”

Well. First to Mr. Bush, who did not immediately leap up and flee in panic while reading to elementary school children. This, gentle reader, is a sign of self-control and the ability to multi-task. Rather than frighten a room full of kids, Mr. Bush read a bit longer while simultaneously preparing for what came next. He knew that he had the time to do that, and that it was the right thing to do. True leaders know this sort of thing. Remember that he was criticized for not immediately returning to Washington, despite the fact that he was very much exercising leadership from the most capable mobile command post the world has ever seen: Air Force One.

Remember too that he was criticized for not immediately flying to New York to stand on smoking rubble to act the role of comforter-in-chief to which the press had become accustomed under Bill Clinton. Fortunately, Mr. Bush wisely preferred to feel the pain of others in private, and to be actually with them, as he did countless times in private visits to our wounded warriors and their families, and with the families of warriors who gave the last, full measure of devotion. It never was all about him. Yet post 9-11, Mr. Bush was reflexively criticized for being.

Point to ponder: A “bombardment” comprising, thus far, more than 130 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a million dollars per bang, plus a wide variety of less expensive munitions, plus the involvement of at least one carrier task force, augmented by an international coalition of military forces is not “a major military action?” One shudders to think what, in Mr. Obama’s estimation, a major military action might be and whether even that might stay him from vacationing or golfing.

Mixed signals over Libya? Indeed, from the beginning until this very day as the media is reporting directly contradictory statements from Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton over the removal/non-removal of Qadaffi, and as a deal is in the works to set up a sort of “political steering committee”--such things, whatever they are, apparently make sense to the French and to Mr. Obama--to run the war that isn’t really a war in Libya, a committee that Americans will not head, and of which NATO will certainly be a part, or maybe not. Mr. Obama seems prepared to be the first American president willing to place American troops under the command of--a steering committee? A committee of foreigners who care little for American soldiers, assets or American interests? Good thing this isn’t a major military action.

Ah yes! It’s all because Mr. Obama is stubborn, but not in a bad way, no! Mr. Obama is stubborn over principle; he is stubborn in avoiding dealing with trivialities. So noble and awesome is The One that even intractable stubbornness is a virtue rather than a vice. An alternate suggestion is that Mr. Obama is utterly unable to deal with the demands, large and small, of the job, and so he ignores whatever he can, hoping it will go away and stop bothering him. This is unsurprising for a man with absolutely no business experience, and a man whose legislative experience was, at best, utterly unremarkable to the degree that many might call it virtually nonexistent.

It is unfair to say that Mr. Obama had no executive experience. He did, leading the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for some six years, with the able assistance and collusion of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. You remember Mr. Ayers? The man Mr. Obama knew only as some guy who happened to live in the same neighborhood who Obama knew only because their kids went to the same school--many years apart? Ayers hired Obama, a community organizer--whatever that is--with no executive experience, to run the CAC to greatly improve the educational outcomes of Chicago students who were failing. Mr. Obama lead by stubbornly and very efficiently burning through tens of millions of dollars, accomplishing exactly nothing, according to a postmortem accounting by the Annenberg Foundation which financed his Titanic-like experiment in executive leadership. Who knew that even then, he was practicing the necessary Democrat presidential skill of burning the money of others at an incredible rate?

Milbank is correct in asserting that Mr. Obama’s frequent, lavish vacations--and the Latin American trip is smelling suspiciously like just that--do tend to lend support to the charge of weak leadership. But even more telling is Mr. Obama’s incredible narcissism and almost exclusive reliance on rhetoric. Mr. Obama really does seem to believe that such is the power of his personality, of his very being--a being he recently observed we must never take for granted--that all he need do to transform anything or anyone is to conduct yet another teleprompter reading. Then will Jihadists reject Islam and truly practice a religion of peace. Then will Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions and its support for terrorism. Then will Palestinians suddenly understand that it is wrong to decapitate three month old babies. Then will peoples living a 7th century tribal existence with its accompanying mindset be suddenly thrust into an enlightened world of self-sacrifice and utopian peace and social justice. Then will despots immediately see the errors of their ways and step down, establishing universal respect for “universal human rights.” As Sarah Palin would say, “how’s that workin’ out for ya?”

However, Milbank is correct in that Mr. Obama is absolutely all about “creating and sustaining new jobs and new opportunities.” Even while enjoying his current vacation, he is doing just that, particularly in the oil industry. Unfortunately, all of those new jobs and opportunities will be for Brazilians, not Americans. Mr. Obama is stubbornly choosing not to create or sustain new jobs and opportunities in the American oil industry, but has pledged to buy simply loads of Brazilian oil for American use. This is rather an odd economic policy for a President who frequently reads from his teleprompter words that suggest that he is all about American jobs and economic growth.

It is an interesting coincidence, for surely it could be nothing else, that George Soros owns a substantial stake in Brazil’s national oil company, Petrobras. I suspect that Mr. Obama’s dedication to Brazilian jobs and opportunities has nothing whatever to do with enriching Mr. Soros. It certainly has nothing whatever to do with enriching Americans.

And as to Mr. Biden--oh, who cares about Mr. Biden? Maybe the Brazilians will name a train station after him as soon as the Obama Administration begins construction on a high speed rail line from Miami to Rio, which makes precisely as much sense as the other high speed rail boondoggles they have proposed.

But Milbank redeems himself by being ultimately correct: Mr. Obama has left a vacuum. It is a vacuum of leadership and policy, both domestic and foreign, that is only just beginning to have disastrous consequences for America and the world. By making everything all about him, Mr. Obama stubbornly overlooks the realities of human nature. There are, around the world, a great many despots and peoples who not only can smell fear and weakness, but will surely exploit it. The vacuum of leadership left by Mr. Obama will be filled, with the bodies of innocent millions, millions Mr. Obama will doubtless stubbornly ignore as his all-seeing gaze takes in only the bigger, more important issues. No doubt his spokesmen will brand this strong leadership as well, leadership that will be dutifully lauded by the lamestream media whose rapidly diminishing credibility is inextricably entwined with Mr. Obama’s fortunes.

Other than than, Milbank is right on the money. What do they call their currency in Brazil again? Golf, anyone?