 |
| Cameron speaks, Obama just watches |
In a typical Anglo-American relationship, Britain and America stand side by side in the face of international danger, but with America standing as the bigger brother. Yet with the Obama/Clinton incompetence over the Libyan situation, David Cameron has had to take the lead and direct the international community to fulfill its moral responsibilities.
The lack of voice from the Obama administration has meant that in this version of the Anglo-American relationship, it is not enough to just say that Britain has changed to the role of bigger brother, and America has reverted to the role of smaller brother. Instead, Obama has reduced America to a helpless child that needs to be carried around by adult, responsible Great Britain. The world is noticing.
Do not get me wrong on this, I do not believe that America lacks either the will or the resources to be a world leader, and to act in a strong, bold way on the crisis in Libya - it is just that its current leaders have deliberately chosen not to. Obama is an old school 1970's pacifist, and hates the idea of America being the leader in any international conflict, even if it is a multilateral intervention. He does not want to spend any money on helping freedom prosper throughout the world - he is too busy inventing new welfare plans back home!
Other countries have the luxury of being quiet for a while on international affairs - America does not. America is known for being both the home and the defender of freedom. As much as trendy lefties like Obama hate this role for America, the fact is that most people in the world want America to act like this, especially those under the iron fist of tyranny. America's silence on this crisis in Libya is deafening as a result.
Although we certainly cannot be expected to intervene in every issue of human rights abuses all over the world, the fall of Gaddafi would be an enormous victory for the West. Not only would the fall be a coup for Britain and America, it is vital that a good, pro-Western leadership replaces him, and it is for that reason that the West needs to guide this revolution in a way that will suit our nations' interests.
This silence from the Obama Administration on this issue is contrasted by the strong voice of British leader David Cameron - not known for his hawkish attitude towards foreign policy. For the first time since the outbreak of World War II, it is Britain, not America that is leading on an international crisis. Yet this does not show the strength of Britain, for Britain has very limited defence resources at the moment. Instead it shows the weakness of America under Obama, and this sends out very clear messages to both America's allies, and to its enemies.
This crisis represents the fall of America as the international leader, and what is so tragic is that this fall has nothing to do with the might, the power, or the will of the United States as a whole. Instead, its fall is solely due to the moral cowardice, and the outdated leftism, of the Obama administration that is forcing the nation to abandon its principles, its allies, and its status as the leader of the free world.
I can't add a thing to this, Adam. You are right. I would point out that even though I too think Obama a coward of the first magnitude, he also is a socialist. He believes the U.N. should make all the decisions on what goes on in the world, because it is an entity made up of all nations. The problem is, as one of our ex-CIA officers pointed out on a news program Sunday: A lot of UN representatives come from fascist repressive countries. Like they would ever side with the U.S. and the West on anything....
ReplyDeletePray for us, Adam. I cannot understand why we haven't experienced another terrorist attack yet. The current administration, by their actions, would probably care less so long as it didn't affect THEM.
Thanks Pam! Yes, that is always my problem with the UN - it looks at everyone's opinion as valid and equal. This moral relativism is a cornerstone of the left and it is toxic.
ReplyDelete