Now he's going after Obama again for not being "cowboy" enough to bomb Gaddafi's air force without a second thought. As before, Newt sounds knowledgeable enough that many people will be fooled into thinking he knows what he's talking about -- and that he has the good judgment and caution needed in a president.
This is why Newt (again) rises to the level of dangerous politician -- capable of stirring up the passions and resentments of those who don't know that he's a serial liar and a clever manipulator without a whiff of integrity.
Newt has no conception of diplomacy and behind the scenes negotiation. He can only bleat out his dire warnings and wild misrepresentations. Because Obama let Britain and France take the lead in pushing for the U.N. Security Council to authorize a no fly zone, Newt assumes that he was dithering and indecisive. In fact, there were tactical reasons for letting France and the UK take the lead on this one; but . . .
Here's Newt, as reported in HP:
“There are a lot of ways to get rid of a dictator, if you want to. But this idea that we posture, we talk, we have diplomatic meetings -- it’s been 30-some days since this started,” Gingrich said. “It makes us look weak and uncertain.”
Pressed for things he would have done differently in the president's position, Gingrich listed only one.
“You start by communicating to the military that he’s going to be gone and that they should be on your side. And in a lot of cases, the military goes, ‘Got it, we’re with you guys.’ And they’re gone. It’s happened a number of times around the world,” he said.
OK. Let's suppose a President Gingrich who says this to the Libyan military leaders. Unlike the Egyptian military, we have almost no connections with or influence over the Libyans and they laugh at our naivete? So President G. would have shot his wad - with nothing to show for it. Then what? You want to go it alone and invade another Arab country without UN authorization and with tepid, at best, support from a few allies -- and huge opposition from a larger number?
Instead, here's what happened: President Obama was highly involved behind the scenes, conferring with the leaders of France and the UK, supporting the no-fly petition privately but knowing our taking the lead might backfire and trigger a veto by Russia or China, as well as generating even more anti-American outrage in the Arab world and increasing recruitment for terrorist missions.
So yesterday the UN Security Council not only approved a no-fly zone (with Russia and China abstaining, but not vetoing it) but the UN also authorized other necessary force -- which means not only can we control their airspace but also bomb their ground troops and protect the civilian rebels -- all within UN authorization.
Now Obama can speak with the authority of the U.N. and with the cooperation of major allies -- and he did so just now:
"All attacks against all civilians must stop. . . . These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Gaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. . . . American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone."
And what did Gaddifi do? As of a few hours ago, his Defense Minister announced a total and immediate cease fire, vowing to protect the civilian population. Now this may indeed be a trick to buy time -- maybe for Gaddifi to get out of the country. We'll have to see.
But compare this outcome:
Obama's way: a promising good outcome without loss of U.S. lives or billions and with strong international support for our position.
Gingrich's way: another war in another Arab country; more drain on our military men and women and on our treasury; more anti-American furor on the Arab Street; more resentment by our allies that the US dictates what they must do.
Let's see how Little Newt plays his next hand. Don't look for him to say "I was hasty and wrong." That language comes from Newt's mouth only when he thinks being a "repentant sinner" is to his political advantage with the religious right that he is courting for his parade.
Ralph
As of this writing a couple of hours later, the reports are that Libyan planes and tanks are still killing civilians and that there is no apparent cease fire.
ReplyDeleteGaddafi is certainly not to be trusted. But now the allies can step in and do what the UN authorized to protect the people and force Gaddafi out.
Here's what's wrong with Newt's scenario about "communicating with the other side's military:"
ReplyDeleteIt worked in Egypt, because 90% of their senior officers trained in the U.S. and have maintained personal contacts with out military; there is mutual respect; in addition we give the Egyptian military lots of money to buy weapons; and the Egyptian military had a little more independence from the nation's dictator.
None of that is true in Libya -- and yet Newt would apply the same advice blindly, because "in a lot of cases" that has worked. That is not reasoning worthy of a high school student, much less a PhD and professor of history, a former Speaker of the House, and a presidential candidate.
He seems to have a little advantage over Sarah Palin, because he is smart and has a lot of (often wild) ideas -- where she is neither. But his smart ideas only make him that much more dangerous.