A LIBERAL INTERVENTION – AT 8:57 P.M. ET:  President Obama is catching it from all sides today over his intervention in Libya.  Some criticisms, I think, are justified.  He waited too long, and there is a vagueness about the mission.  Some criticism, coming from the fringe left and from some Republicans, is somewhat over the top.  Republicans, in particular, must take care that they're not perceived as knee-jerk carpers, who complain about Obama just because he's Obama.  And we should remember that American warriors are in harm's way.

Ross Douthat of The New York Times, whom we have not cited before, has the quote of the day in explaining the pros and cons of Obama's liberal-style intervention:

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.

But there are major problems with this approach to war as well. Because liberal wars depend on constant consensus-building within the (so-called) international community, they tend to be fought by committee, at a glacial pace, and with a caution that shades into tactical incompetence. And because their connection to the national interest is often tangential at best, they’re often fought with one hand behind our back and an eye on the exits, rather than with the full commitment that victory can require.

COMMENT:  Well put.  We're concerned here that President Obama is not demanding Ghadaffi's immediate exit, simply suggesting it.  It's understood that if this intervention ends with the Libyan leader still in power, we will have lost.

March 21, 2011