Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

I've had two lines of thought bothering me for weeks now.  I've been harping on the idea that something needed to be done to stop the civilian deaths in Libya yet no one wanted to step forward.  When finally done, there was no plan what-so-ever and still no one wants the responsibility.  The probable outcome is likely to be dismal.  Would a stronger president have taken a stand for or against intervention and explained the reasoning to us?  I'd like to think so.

Given that, I got to thinking about all the other civil unrest going on in the mid-east and continental Africa, not to mention other areas of the world, and why Libya has gotten the attention it has.  The media.  If they would get on the case in Darfur, for instance, we  be clamoring for intervention there?  Probably so.  Should we?  Yes.  Could we?  Realistically, no.  We were lucky with Egypt.  Mainly because the army refused to fire on the people. Luck ran out in Libya.

We are looked to for leadership.  This president does not want it nor will he take it.  Saying no takes just as much leadership as saying yes, maybe even more.  But a leader must be willing to take a risk and do what's right for our country regardless of political expediency. A leader must also be willing to communicate with his people and his government, to answer their questions and take the flak that may come with it.   Obama does not seem to have the inclination.  The result is mixed and incomplete messages that come across as weakness rather than deliberitiveness.

That takes me to another subject I've been stewing over.  How can the world sit back and allow these things to happen and how can it be so selective as to where there is effort to stop it or not.  The amount of press it receives and the reaction to it. Since civil conflict seems to be a way of life around the world strong policies are needed for dealing with it .  Or not.  And we need to know what they are.  Obviously at this time we have nothing cohesive nor coherent.  It falls on the president and his administration.  Other countries, too, need to know exactly where we stand and why.

My second dilemma.  I'm beginning to formulate what I'd like to see in the upcoming presidential candidates.  So far I'm not encouraged. What I've learned is to not be overly impressed with an ability to give a good speech, but rather look for substance and more importantly experience.   If I want a leader I want someone with proven skills, not just soaring rhetoric. If I want a leader I want to see someone who has had life experience outside  the narrowness of academia and one willing to call on real experts over cronies.  That's probably a pipe dream.  Broad knowledge of heath care, business,  economics, social issues and everything else we need to deal with.  It's a very tall order.

I'm sorry we don't have a strong woman in the queue.  Not a Michele Bachmann nor a Sarah Palin.  I never thought I'd say it, but Hillary is the only woman who has a real grasp of what's needed.  She's been in the thick of it.  It shows.  She looks exhausted. She wants no more of it.

Why a woman?  Because of the nature of the job.  Women are superb multi-taskers.  Men are not.  Other than  Germany's Angela Merkel, the leadership involved in the mid-east mess are all men.  We have the bullies. We have the victims of the bullies and it isn't just the people of the bullies' countries.

Laying The Groundwork For Safe Haven?

A difference between the conflict in Libya and Afghanistan is that the Libyan people want our help.  The Afghans are indifferent.  The similarity is neither leader wants us anywhere near.  We've poured billions into both.

Afghanistan's Karzai, who owes his presidency to us, has made it abundantly clear he doesn't like the way we are engaging the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Though no where near ready, he has now announced  plans for his security forces to take over.  It has led me to wonder; the premise being he's laying the groundwork for safe haven for the Taliban and al Qaeda in return for his piece of the pie.

Consider that the areas he is going to have his security forces take over are the ones we've secured.  He won't anger either group or the war lords at the same time presenting little risk to his forces.

He wants to curtail the work being done by both the U.S. and the United Nations.  Not that he can pick up where they've left off.  It does, however, deprive his people of whatever improvements may have been in the works and being a country living in another century, they will not miss what they do not know.

One of the areas he wants to take over is in the heart of the Taliban stronghold, therefore assuring them their sanctuary.

All of this is dependent on $6 billion in international aid to train the security force.

Add to all that the restrictions on night raids of homes suspected of sheltering militants, the constant harping on civilian casualties and the containment of the private security companies protecting supply convoys.

The final indicator is the call for the U.N. to halt it's efforts to clean up Afghanistan's less than exemplary electoral system.

Nothing Karzai has done indicates he has the best interests of his country at heart, but like most despots, it's his own and his cronies.  He just isn't strong enough to do it alone thus the alliance with the Taliban and al Qaeda, now sitting safe and sound in Pakistan.

In my perfect world we'd deal with Pakistan, an ally in name only, and leave Afghanistan telling Karzai that the minute we spot the  implementation of a training camp we're going to take it out.  And do it.  Of course that's wishful thinking.

At the very least, since we're in such dire financial straits, perhaps our whole foreign aid policy should be readdressed.  Quit turning the other cheek when those we support ignore, insult and demean us would be a start.

Just When I Thought Things Were At Their Worst!

I do applaud my readers who have been arguing my point that it was correct for the UN, with the inclusion of the US, to take action to support the Libyan civilians.

 The argument now is where should it stop.  I'd say right about now.  The rebels have been given their chance to regroup, obtain weapons and mount an offensive or their defenses. They have a civil war on their hands and the direction it takes is in the hands of the two sides.  We encouraged them.  It is not right to abandon them after having done so.  We've done that before.  Ask the Iraqi's about the time after the first Gulf war.

What has made this action so precarious is that civil wars are breaking out all across the region.  It is highly unusual and for so many all at once.  My readers are right.   We can't intervene in all of them.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Obama had the constitutional right to take the action he did.  The War Powers Act,  I believe, says he did. At least his interpretation of it.  But now what? Uprisings are occurring in Syria, Israel is firing on Gaza, Hamas is firing on Israel,  there is Yemen and on and on.  Muslims are fighting Muslims and Jews and vice versa.  No matter, it's war everywhere and one is no more brutal than another.  Civilians are still getting slaughtered.  Sometimes I think we should rope off the entire region and let them duke it out among themselves.  The question that constantly bothers me, however, and it's what I've been writing about, is what if any moral obligation is there when the sides are so unevenly matched.

The answers will play out on the world stage over the upcoming months to be sure.

Let's assume for a moment that there are those who think we did the right thing. We can use some redemption in the eyes of many Muslims.  So what happens? Reverend Terry Jones turns up again.  Remember him?  The pastor of the 50 member church that was going to burn the Koran in protest to the proposed Islamic center in New York? It took no less than the Justice Department to dissuade him.

Well, this time he did it.  It is reported that Sunday they held a mock trial of the Koran while one soaked in kerosene and was then burned.  Onlookers were said to have posed for photos.

A question was posed at the end of the article asking what might happen if a photo of the event, real or photo shopped, were to turn up on the Internet.  The article did.  Is the photo far behind? Or is the article fuel enough?

One man and his 50 followers. Another of those God fearing ministers. During this time of turmoil when the US is trying to negotiate an extremely slippery slope, they have to pull this.

Freedom of speech.  All I can do is roll my eyes, shake my head and pronounce from the top of my lungs that all Americans are not like this!

Ugly Americans

To use a pig as the illustration for this post is an insult to the pig.

 We just returned from a little rest and recreation.  As usual we chose a couple of our favorite old hotels for lodging.  We've found that many of them have superb dining rooms and look forward to some gourmet repast in out of the way places.  Our first stop was the wonderful Grand Union Hotel in Fort Benton, MT.  Everything was as we expected ~ quite charming and relaxing.

It was Saint Patricks day and their were quite a few people in the dining room. As we dallied over our dinner my eyes were drawn to a table not far away.  The couple being seated were about our age I'd guess.  The gentleman, and I use word loosely, thought himself quite the charmer but I wondered how well it sat when he asked the hostess if she was one of the local yokels. It went downhill from there.  Both the table manners and the conversation for all to hear.

 Just before they finished the lady excused herself.  I wish I had too.  He finished his wine, a nice red he put in an ice bucket then filled the bucket with his table water, then his wife's then toyed with the food left on her plate.  It was impossible not to watch him try as I did.  He proceeded to clean every tooth in his mouth with his napkin then give his nose a great blow.  Into the napkin.  He was still sitting alone when we finished and left.  His wife had been gone for quite awhile.  I never wondered why.

Next stop the Pollard in Red Lodge.  Another of our favorites.  A man with his two sons, after a day of skiing, were seated next to us.  Both boys wore baseball caps and had their electronics with them.  Dad ate with both arms on the table, never lifting his elbow to get his fork to his mouth.  The boys followed suit, missing a few times.  It's hard to eat and play your game boy at the same time I guess.  Their dining style was with fork in fist.   I do not understand how one can eat that way!  I guess, once again, it's a generational thing ~ manners!

The only time they put their game gadgets down was when they had to cut their meat.  Knife in fist. I picked up my  knife and fork that way and it actually hurt my wrists when I tried to stab a bite.

When did table manners disappear?  When did wearing proper attire disappear?  When Hub and I go out for a nice dinner we feel like dinosaurs.  We've been accused of being snobs.  My Mom, though, had it right.  It's not being a snob, she'd say, it's a standard of living.

It's too bad we have to dine at home to enjoy it.

Hail Hillary!

Vacation was too short but the prospects for another longer one next month eases the angst.  We didn't even listen to the news in the car more than once or twice.  Mostly to hear what, if anything, was happening in Libya.  Okay.  I'm rested and ready.

I heard the clip from Wolf Blitzer's interview with Hillary about her future ambitions along with her assessment of the Libyan situation.  Her emphatic and unembellished "no" to whether she wanted to continue in her present position or move to Defense or the Vice Presidency.  "No."  The Presidency?  "No."  Her tone and her demeanor preceding this interview made me begin to wonder if all was still sweetness and light between she and Obama.  I think she's been the good soldier too long.  Hub and I had been debating if she'll stick out this term or quit beforehand. We'll see, but at least we know there will be a new Secretary of State no matter who wins in 2012.

Now, this is strictly speculation, but I have a feeling Hillary had a dutch uncle talk with Obama and told him in no uncertain terms the U.S. had to act or she was out of there.  After all, for a Democrat she has been hawkish in the past.  More importantly she remembers the stinging criticism the U.S. got over not acting on the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Bill finally told the U.N. enough is enough. The slaughter had to end.  If this is what happened I have high praise for her.  No matter, she is the one instrumental in moving it forward.  Not the President.  Again, I have high praise for her.

In Libya, Gaddafi is slaughtering the people to retain power pure and simple.  When your own people become your enemy you have to wonder if you're doing something wrong if your people and your country mean anything to you.  In Gaddafi's case the answer is obvious.  It's all about him and the power.  I understand the lust for power.  What escapes me is why such brutality always seems to accompany it.  What manner of men are these?  I guess we know.

If we had acted sooner perhaps the media wouldn't be speculating whether or not Gaddafi will remain in power.  If he does it will be a bad reflection on the United States whether or not we think it justified. Not that other countries weren't willing to take the lead.  France in particular.  But we are the ones with the necessary assets to make intervention not only possible but workable.  Other countries do not have our military might nor the caliber of leadership.

I've said it before and I no doubt will keep harping on it.  The world expects the U.S. to lead. That doesn't mean we have to police the world but when blatant atrocities occur against civilians it is the world's responsibility to act.  They aren't used to the idea that we have a President who is not inclined to do so.  Neither am I.  I expect they remain hopeful that this moment in history will pass and the United States will elect a leader who will take the country back to where it belongs.  The leader of the free world. So do I.