was what he did not say. But I'll get to that in a minute.
Overall, it was his usual dynamic oratory, a stream of ear candy that might have had the power to inspire were it imbued with substance and some demonstrated history of conviction. Even lacking those, it sounded beautiful. I listened to it on the radio and enjoyed the succession of boomy little thumps through the microphone when Obama brought his hand down on the podium for emphasis. His gift of gab and presence nearly conjures up a centrist version of Ronald Reagan, except that Obama is smarter, has an actual vocabulary, and doesn't understand (as The Gipper did) that if you won't fight for the things you say, others won't respect you or follow your lead. Strongest lines in the speech: Obama's pointing to the eight-year gazillion-dollar Iraq debacle as a warning against American occupation and nation-building in Libya. Here, his underlying indictment of George W. Bush's legacy cut like a razor in butter. Weakest lines: Obama's boilerplate run-ons about ruthless dictatorships being anathema to American "values" and our just role in the world. A laugh track would not have been out of place here.
Which leads to the interesting thing that Obama did not say. In countering critics, he made at least two references in the speech to the fact that American "interests" were a critical element in forcing our intervention in Libya, while we have chosen to ignore or abet monstrous regimes elsewhere. He went on to define these compelling "interests" as being 1.) the unacceptability of having a Gaddafi dictatorship smack dab between fledgling democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and 2.) the destruction of the credibility of the Western alliance if their threats against Gaddafi were not backed up with firm action. Leaving aside the shaky nature of NATO's Libya action and its unpredictable outcome, both of these claims of Obama's are pure cow pie. Realpolitik America tolerates enemies in proximity to non-enemies all the time for the sake of expediency. And if NATO's and the West's empty threats over the decades were terminally discrediting, we would have lost all international clout long ago.
But here is what is interesting. The unstated but clear admission behind Obama's statement is: Having three brutal dictatorships next to one another – Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt – was okay, but having one remaining dictatorship next to two newly overthrown ones is not okay. In other words, stability for American corporate and strategic interests is what matters. According to this unspoken worldview, if three adjacent bloody dictatorships maintain stability – as they have for decades with America's tolerance – then we're cool. And if three new less repressive governments mean stability, then that's cool, too. But if democratic upheavals (with no American help) in two of those nations stir up things so that our third dictator partner is now the odd man out – well, we can't have that. So here comes our convenient awakening of conscience. Hail democracy! Down with (our formerly approved) tyranny!
Pretty despicable, really. But Obama sure did make it sound pretty.
Comments