Peter Feaver points out that the very Administration that came into office promising to respect our allies, and to exercise caution and prudence in the realm of foreign affairs is doing anything but. He also notes that the Administration has far more in common with the Rumsfeld-Feith position on how best to effect regime change than Team Obama would care to admit. No excerpts; just go ahead and read the whole thing.
Meanwhile, Kori Schake throws cold water on the notion that the Obama Administration’s approach to regime change is somehow better than the approach shown by the Bush Administration. Another piece that is too good to merely excerpt from. Click on the link, and go read it all. I’ll wait.
Back? Great. Obviously, I don’t expect hardcore Obamaphiles to appreciate the cogent arguments found in Feaver’s and Schake’s pieces; those newfound fans of an Imperial Presidency are far too gone in their worship of the Imperial President in question to tolerate challenges to their worldview. But as we gear up for a Presidential election campaign, it is my hope that more open-minded types will see that (a) it is far too early to consider the operation in Libya a success; and (b) even if it is deemed a success, the Libya model is very much inapplicable to other regime change scenarios. Add to all of this the fact that the Obama Administration ran roughshod over Constitutional principles in prosecuting this war–which they continue to claim never was a war–and you have quite the disturbing situation. I know that the economy will be the prime issue in the election next year, but those who–like me–care deeply about foreign policy and national security issues should do what can be done to ensure that those issues get some attention in the upcoming election. Its promises notwithstanding, the Obama Administration has not changed American foreign policy for the better. And the electorate deserves to know that.