Barack Obamas foreign policy dream cordial relations with a Middle East tranquilized by smart diplomacy is in a death grapple with reality.
By GEORGE WILL
The Washington Post
His rhetorical writhings illustrate the perils of loquacity. He has a gluttons rather than a gourmets appetite for his own rhetorical cuisine, and has talked America to the precipice of a fourth military intervention in the crescent that extends from Libya to Afghanistan.
Characterizing the 2011 Libyan project with weirdly passive syntax (It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions), he explained his sashay into Libyas civil war as pre-emptive: I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
With characteristic self-satisfaction, Obama embraced the doctrine R2P responsibility to protect civilians and Libya looked like an opportunity for an inexpensive morality gesture using high explosives.
Last August, R2P reappeared when he startled his staff by offhandedly saying of Syrias poison gas: A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.
The interesting metric whole bunch made his principle mostly a loophole and advertised his reluctance to intervene, a reluctance more sensible than his words last week: Syrias recidivism regarding gas is going to require Americas attention and hopefully the entire international communitys attention.
Regarding that entirety: If community connotes substantial shared values and objectives, what community would encompass Denmark, Congo, Canada, North Korea, Portugal, Cuba, Norway, Iran, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Poland and Yemen?
Words, however, are so marvelously malleable in the Obama administration, the Oxford English Dictionarys definition of coup (a change in the government carried out violently or illegally) somehow does not denote what happened in Egypt. Last week, an Obama spokesman said: We have made the determination that making a decision about whether or not a coup occurred is not in the best interests of the United States. So convinced is this White House of its own majesty and of the consequent magic of its words, it considers this a clever way of saying the law is a nuisance.
Section 508 of the Foreign Assistance Act forbids aid to any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup until the president determines that a democratically elected government has been restored.
Perhaps Section 508 unwisely abridges presidential discretion in foreign policy, where presidents arguably deserve the almost unfettered discretion they, with increasing aggressiveness, assert everywhere. And perhaps if Obama were not compiling such a remarkable record of indifference to law, it would be sensible to ignore his ignoring of this one.
But remember Libya. Obama was unprecedentedly cavalier, even though he had ample time to act consistent with the Constitution by involving a supportive Congress.
Obama is as dismissive of red lines he draws as he is of laws others enact. Last week, a State Department spokeswoman said his red line regarding chemical weapons was first crossed a couple of months ago and the president took action presumably, announcing (non-lethal) aid to Syrian rebels although were not going to outline the inventory of what we did.
The administration now would do well to do something that the head of it has an irresistible urge not to do: Stop talking.
If a fourth military intervention is coming, it will not be to decisively alter events, which we cannot do, in a nation vital to U.S. interests, which Syria is not. Rather, its purpose will be to rescue Obama from his words.
To reach Washington Post columnist George Will, send email to email@example.com.