NOW WHAT???

There used to be a comedy team called "Laurel and Hardy" on television years ago. They coined a favorite line which for years was in the American vernacular. It was---"now look what a fine mess you've gotten us into!" We may have to bring those words out of retirement as the Libyan crisis begins to look more like a real fine mess, than anything else. Nobody seems to know exactly who's in charge, what our mission is, and how we're going to get out, now that we're in. President Obama, the ever reluctant decision maker, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, first declared that Gadaffi must go, then did nothing for days apparently hoping that the despot would leave upon hearing his warning, dithering away critical time while Gadaffi gathered his forces. When at last, after making clear that we would only play "follow the leader" with an assault on Libya, Obama gave the orders to join Germany, France and other countries with the U.N.'s resolution, in a bomb campaign for "humanatarian" reasons. All well and good, except that now things haven't gotten much better---Gadaffi is still there, still fighting back, and who knows who will be in charge after the smoke clears. Everyone seems confused---Obama wants out, and suggests turning the mess over to NATO. Surprisingly, France want to take the lead and the credit, and the military is in a "no win" situation--they are now referring to their action as a "kinetic" manuever, a strangely ambiguous term meaning "movement" and apparently meant to deflect any charge of "war". Insisting all along that the objective was not to kill Gadaffi, but only to protect the rebels and civilians, the military must be asking themselves what they're really doing there.

To make matters worse, our congress is now getting in on the act by accusing Obama of going to war without consulting them. But, you see, this is not "war"---this is simply an act of humanitarianism--- or so claims President Obama. It's all very confusing and disconcerting because it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. And does anyone get the feeling that nobody really knows what to do? Who actually is the leader here--are we actually going to follow the French??

President Obama may wish the French would just take it off his hands. He cannot comfortably call this a "war" for a couple of reasons---number 1, he was elected hugely on the basis of his anti-war stance , namely" George Bush's Iraq war "; number 2--Obama really does not believe in America leading the charge against other countries' uprisings---even those whose overturns may be justified or whose eventual incoming powers could seriously affect our best security and economic interests. His view, as stated during his campaigns and since , is that we should no longer be an "Imperial" nation, but just one of many nations agreeing to act together, if at all---thus, his reluctance to enter the Libyan crisis. But circumstances seemed to demand our support of a people clamoring for emancipation from the long rule of Gadaffi. This wasn't Egypt, where there was no military blow-back and little violence. So,reluctantly and perhaps too belatedly, Obama entered the fray and stated that Gadaffi must go--but he didn't scare off, so we had to go in--- not to get him out,you understand--just to protect others from his violence. Right, but,uh, he's still there, and gaining ground. In order to get him out, this "kinetic" move may have to involve more than humanitarian efforts---which is probably why Obama wants out. Assasinations and/or "boots on the ground" wasn't what he or we signed up for. Whether it was right or wrong to get involved with Libya, we did, and to get out gracefully is not looking like an option. If Libya falls into the hands of Al Queda or other anti-America groups, we're worse off than before. If It remains under the rule of Gadaffi--well,it goes without saying that he may be a little ticked off with us, and probably won't be turning the other cheek. Gadaffi still has to go, only now it's going to be very messy. It seems to go without saying--you can't have it both ways--either we lead, or get out of the way of someone who will.

We are seeing a young President learning on the job here---and if weren't so frightening,it would be hard not to feel some sympathy for this very likeable, but enigmatic and inexperienced man having to make so many world changing decisions. It's difficult enough to deal with the problems of one's own country without the added burden of the changing Arab nations, the complexity of which few of us understand,including our politicians. But true leadership demands informed, bold decision making, and sometimes even "on the fly", as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates characterized the White House start/stop decision process. There isn't always a lot of time for deliberation or contemplation. That's not Obama's style, and he seems over his head on this one. Does the approaching election in 2012 cause this confusion and paralysis of action? Presidents must lead, one way or the other,and true statesmen lead from principle, not politics. George Bush, whatever you may think of him and his decision to go to war against Iraq and to stay the course, certainly did not do so for political gain. He weighed the evidence at hand and the options and took a stand--he lead. He did what he thought best for his country---let us hope President Barack Obama is doing the same-- not what best advances his ideals, or his chances for re-election. I happen to think Obama is primarily leading from his principles, but is having a hard time lining them up with the real world. That's his dilemma and his cross. May he find the courage and wisdom soon to be up to challenges unparalled before in this country. Like him or not, we're counting on him to know all the facts available and to act--not wait until it's too late.

Who knows what comes next? The Arab countries, especially Yemen and Bahrain, are bubbling in a dangerous brew of unrest and uncertainty. Each country is different with a mix of religions, tribes , military, and rulers. Obama must somehow mesh his ideologies with the demands of whether to become deeply involved in the rapidly morphing Arab world---can he afford not to? Can we? We have recently learned that Egypt is now being taken over by the the "Muslim Brotherhood" and they and the military were in collusion all along. Now we shall see whether this new arrangement will bode well for the cry for democracy -- and our vested interests. We shouldn't be concerned about our interests? If not us, who?

The experts on the Arab crisis du jour, Libya, seem to be thinking we can only take it a day at a time, as there are no clear paths or destinations. It all seems surreal and uncharacteristic for a country that used to know what we were doing. Will someone please light a match to shed some light? Forget the match--probably not a good idea right now--already too much going up in flames, including our reputation as a world leader, and possibly our very security as a nation if we continue to dither and leave the decisions to others. As I end this column, it now appears that NATO will be taking over the reigns on the Libyan "kinetic" manuever.

If this new hands-off policy that President Obama prefers, is to be our new normal, then let us hope that we will have abnormal luck in remaining the world's super power---and not find ourselves in one big fine mess. In the meantime, you might want to pick up a book on Sharian law.