Image 01 Image 03

Remind me again, what is the Obama Doctrine?

Remind me again, what is the Obama Doctrine?

I kinda saw this coming.

On March 23 I pointed out the potential problem that since we were acting in Libya under a U.N. Resolution requiring the protection of civilians, we would face the dilemma that if the rebels started attacking pro-Gaddafi civilians, we might have to attack the rebels, Are Some Libyan Civilians More Equal?:

 “If the rebels start attacking pro-Gaddafi civilians, will we intervene to protect pro-Gaddafi civilians pursuant to the U.N. Resolution?

If the U.N. Resolution is the template, then I don’t see how non-Libyans avoid putting boots on the ground, unless the civil war becomes civil, which is unlikely.”

This wasn’t hard to see coming, because I’ve studied revolutions, not for revolution.

And thus it comes true, via HotAir, NATO warns Libyan rebels: If you attack civilians, we’ll bomb you too:

“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”…

But we already are seeing rebels not obeying this advice, and brutalizing civilians thought to pro-Gaddafi.

No one could have seen this coming, right?

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Does R2P extend to Syria? Today are Friday prayers. Expect significant civilian deaths in today's Syrian demonstrations. As these things go each Friday the mosques, which can't be shut down, are the locus of demonstrations which are violently suppressed by the regime, leading to funerals and larger demonstration the next Friday which are then violently suppressed.

Syria is the enabler and refuge for most of the nastiest terrorist groups in the middle east. Assad is the right hand man for Iranian (Persian) revanchism, Shia' imperialism, Middle Eastern Muslim nuclear weapon development and Israel extermination efforts. Syia was the focal point of the jihadist underground railroad into Iraq which prolonged the Iraq war and led to hundreds of American deaths.

"Civilians" is that euphemism that makes waging war, I mean kinetic action, without putting boots on the ground okay. It's even better if they are "freedom fighters" (fighting for the right to impose Islamist government on those "peace loving" civilians.

It would really help if we could actually say what we mean especially if we explaining our national interests weren't so politically incorrect. That applie equally to "both" political parties, Democrats and Assistant Democrats alike.

In the West we have this notion of "non-combatants". There are soldiers and then there are civilians. Seems to be this is a distinction lost on the Muslim world: any non-Muslim is a legitimate target, any Muslim is a warrior. Thus the lines between who is and who isn't on what side is real shaky. Further, what do we do if one sides sheds their uniforms and fights in civilian clothing? Law enforcement hates getting dragged into domestic conflicts because of the difficulty of determining who is at fault. It would behoove us to refrain from becoming roiled into another country's civil war. There are some atrocities we can not prevent. But the British, French and Italians need their oil.

According to Sec. State Clinton, the Obama Doctrine includes ignoring War Resolutions from Congress:

But it's OK, because a Democrat's the Pres.

The Obama Doctrine:

What would France do?

(…not original, but apt…)

i believe i have refined the "Obama Doctrine" to it's purist state:

"If it's stupid, do it."