Developments this week with Libya and Syria show that President Barack Obama is in way over his head on U.S. foreign policy – once again.

In Libya, rebel fighters are closing in on Col. Moammar Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli - though remain locked in a six-month civil war and face a potential bloodbath in taking the city. This is despite Mr. Obama’s headlong rush to lead “kinetic military action” in March to back them up, an effort expected by some optimists in Washington to last weeks. NATO, with U.S. forces at the core, is still at it.


With Syria, Mr. Obama finally called for strongman President Bashar Al-Assad to step down – only now that 2,000 pro-democracy demonstrators have been killed in military assaults with tanks, infantry and naval bombardment. Though certainly the right decision, unfortunately it’s about five months overdue, and too late for those who have already lost their lives.

It’s almost as if Mr. Obama has been operating in fast-forward to support democracy and protect lives in Libya, while going slow motion in Syria.

Why is that?

First, when it comes to entrenched regimes like Qaddafi’s and Al-Assad’s, dictators know that the law of the jungle applies. Weak states like Libya are more vulnerable to foreign military intervention and internal unrest - strong states like Iranian-backed Syria are more secure. Despite Mr. Obama’s lofty statements defying dictators and promoting human rights, he only really tried to deliver in lower-risk environments. Egypt and Tunisia come to mind.

Second, rather than leading from the front as American presidents have traditionally done – save Jimmy Carter, Mr. Obama takes his cues from international organizations like the UN and Arab League. Once they pressed for military action in Libya, it was Tomahawks away – with the U.S. leading the charge.

Third, despite his popularity overseas, Mr. Obama arguably still doesn’t have the experience of a seasoned chief executive to deal with thorny issues like the Arab Spring. This shouldn’t be a surprise, considering his four years in the Senate were known for voting “present.”

Though admittedly it’s easier to criticize the government than to be responsible for producing successful results – my five years at the Pentagon taught me that hard truth, here are some tangible steps that the Obama Administration could have done better, and should do next on Libya and Syria:

On Libya, instead of committing U.S. forces to a third war while we’re already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, he should have insisted those shouting the loudest for military action – France, the U.K. and Arab League, do the heavy lifting. The U.S. fired roughly 98% of the Tomahawk missiles, deployed the most ships and aircraft, dropped the majority of precision-guided munitions, and thus got stuck with the highest bill.

And since Qaddafi struck us twice in the 1980s with terrorism in retaliation for military confrontations, we’re now squarely in the cross hairs for a reprisal. Thus we ought to be doing more to push him out now that we have attacked him again - each day he remains in power represents a threat to Americans. We should do more to shape a U.S.-friendly, Al-Qaeda-free rebel movement – while we still have the chance.

On Syria, instead of waiting for the protester death count to reach 2,000, Mr. Obama should have called for Al-Assad to step down long ago. And instead of merely slapping economic sanctions on just 7 Syrian leaders in May, he should have expanded them to include Syria’s oil, banking, and communications industries – a move he has just now undertaken.

Next, he should recall U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford from Damascus - failure to do so adds legitimacy to the regime. He should start supporting the Syrian opposition without delay. After all, Bashar Al-Assad and his father Hafez before him were not shy about supporting those fighting U.S. forces over these past decades.

Syria was the main conduit for pan-Arab fighters pouring into Iraq to wage jihad against our troops. They’ve also armed and trained Hezbollah and Hamas - terrorist organizations bent on forcing our withdrawal from the Middle East and Israel’s destruction. Hezbollah was behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 servicemen.

Short of “military kinetic action,” there’s a lot Mr. Obama could and should be doing on Syria – but appears unable to get the job done.

Though his speeches may sound great, he hasn’t been effective in delivering positive outcomes for America in complex world events like we’ve seen in Libya and Syria.

Such a flawed foreign policy strategy – one that in essence rewards strong dictators and punishes weak ones, regardless of the direct threat to us – harms our reputation as a world leader and encourages rogue regimes to build up their own military arsenals.

J.D. Gordon is a communications consultant to several Washington-D.C. think tanks and a retired Navy Commander who served as a Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-2009.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/20/libya-syria-show-obama-in-way-over-his-head/#ixzz1VhQHA75i

One of the reasons is Obama isn't the Commander in Chief, he is the Coward in Chief. He is the most hated President by members of our military in history.

Why is it those who have never been in a fire fight, such as those blow hards at fox and a few other people, are always the first ones to call for us to go to war?

Commander Gordon has never been in a fire fight in his enire career? I would like to see evidence of that.

Well, _I'd_ like to see evidence that the current Commander-in-Chief is the most hated CIC in history. The same thing was said about Clinton and probably Carter before him.

See, this is a very old canard that's wheeled out its stall on creaky wheels about EVERY modern Democratic president.

-Kerry O.

Lets see; communications consultant for conservative "think tanks",
pentagon spokesman, and retired at the rank of commander.
That screams desk jockey to me.

Every service member I have talked to hates the guy and I talk to a lot with all the major bases we have here, including the Top Gun school.

Now he works for several think tanks, and is a consultant. Before that he was a commander in the navy and a senior officer at the Pentagon.

There seems to be the myth around that Libya is an American operation. What would suggest that the Americans President is ""in over his head? It's a Faux News fantasy. Libya is a popular uprising with aid from NATO. Some participation of American technology.

As I write this, Libyan rebels are on the verge of taking tripoli with little resistance and the dictator Quadaffi is packing his bags.

"Obama in over his head"! The Tea Partiers believe any Faux News fantasy they hear.

Well, now THAT's a scientific survey. And hardly what I'd call 'evidence'-- more like hearsay. And I'm sure, with your background, you know how much weight hearsay 'evidence' carries.

In today's news, we hear that Qadaffi is on the run, about to be deposed. Quite a contrast to your post quoting that military guy over the weekend, with the two of you saying Obama is 'in over his head.'

Lessee-- Bush couldn't get bin Laden, and Reagan couldn't get Qadaffi. Does that mean the it's Obama 2- GOP 0? :)


-Kerry O.

Military Notebook: Support for Obama weak in troop poll
THOMAS L. DAY - tday@macon.com


Results released last week of a survey of military service members, conducted by Military Times, showed weak support for President Obama among the troops he commands.

Just 36 percent of the service members who were surveyed approve of Obama’s handling of the war in Afghanistan, well below the general public’s approval of Obama’s performance in Afghanistan.

Nearly half of the active duty service members in the survey called themselves conservative, while only 8 percent called themselves liberal.

Only 12 percent of service members surveyed by the Military Times identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 41 percent who identified themselves as Republicans.

Of note is how many troops don’t identify themselves with either party. A similar survey conducted in 2004 showed that 60 percent of military service members identified themselves as Republicans, with 12 percent calling themselves Democrats.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/04/18/1097959/poll-of-troops-support-for-obama.html#ixzz1Vo1BGoaw

I dn't know what this is suppose to tell us We all know that the troops are fed a steady diet of Faux News. The only real poll will be from those who have returned to life at home when they learn how they have been lied to all this time.

Actually, the only real poll will me 2012. If Perry or Bachman or Romney are polling higher than 40%, then Obama needs to worry. Perry is a train wreck waiting to happen. Bachman is already a national joke. Romney is going to hae too much to explain about his job-creation history at Bain Capital. I can't imagine that a few disgrunted and misled GIs are going to have a serious impact.

So, President Obama is "in way over his head" in Libya and Syria? Brilliant analysis now that the Libyan rebels are taking over Tripoli. They have even erected a giant poster thanking Obama, Cameron, Rice and Sarkozy for a successful NATO intervention. The photos in this article are pretty impressive. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/libyans-thank-obama-poster_n_933396.html

As for Syria, Obama is once again doing exactly the right thing - allowing Assad to self-destruct. Assad's days are numbered. He will be destroyed by his own people. The entire arab world is being treated to a media blitz of reporting on Syria's atrocities and violence. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/08/my-entry.html

Faux News really does just make this stuff up.

I wonder if you would have the guts to say the above to a group of GIs. They might show you what they are actually fed a steady diet of. The military personnel I know are intelligent and well informed.

What the article says is that the troops don't support Obama, which speaks well of their grasp of our country's condition.

When you say "We all know ..." it is now automatic that whatever follows is simply baloney.

All well and good but it sure doesn't back up Don's statement that:



Your survey says ONLY that they disapprove of his handling of Afghanistan, NOT that they hate him like no other president. Ever. Even then, 36% is hardly indicative of "most", even if ALL 64% of the other persuasion _do_ "hate" him.

And I SURE don't think those 64% would go on record as saying they think he is the 'Coward-in-Chief'.

-Kerry O.

Of course I would, and they would agree. AFN news offers the 3 corporate "news lite" networks plus Fox news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Forces_NetworkOther than the half hour evening news, where do you think they get their news? If they get it from Fox News, then the military personnel you know are not well informed. Nobody has made any judgments about their intelligence.

I'll amend my "we all know" remark. Make that "66% knows. The other 33% will never get it".

Uncanny how that 33% number keeps coming up in all these political discussions.