Video: Andrea Mitchell explains “the Obama Doctrine”

posted at 9:27 pm on March 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, it’s simple as can be. If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.” Question: What if (1) and (2) are satisfied but not (3)? Just … let ’em die, then? I can understand France using that calculus since they’re incapable of mounting a humanitarian intervention without international (i.e. American) support. It’s a necessary precondition, as it is for every other country in the world — except us. If we’re using it as a precondition too, it can only be because we’re so worried about a backlash on the “Arab street” to America intervening to save tens of thousands of Arab lives that we’d rather preserve what little goodwill we still have by letting Qaddafi kill people willy nilly. And of course, if we refused to intervene and stood by and let it happen, we’d be blamed for that too, which exposes the “international support” criterion for the fraud that it is. Essentially, if you take Mitchell seriously, the question of whether the U.S. should act to prevent mass bloodlettings in the Middle East should be left up to the opportunistic Islamists who now run Turkey and the cretinous dictator salon we know as the Arab League. In fact, this formulation doesn’t make sense on its own terms: “International opinion” is something that should fall under cost/benefit analysis, one of many factors to be weighed alongside things like the risk that the mission would present to U.S. servicemen, the financial expense incurred by the operation, etc. Why split it off and make it a standalone requirement? If Omar al-Bashir decides he’s going to liquidate the population of Sudan and the Arab League decides that’s A-OK, is Obama really going to let their disapproval stop him from acting? Please.

Incidentally, apart from military action, is there any “Obama Doctrine” for issuing statements of condemnation? I know they put one out a few days ago about the violence in Syria, but things have escalated dramatically and it sounds like Assad might be ready to go berserk. The international community’s cool with that, I’m sure, so we don’t even need to consider the costs and benefits of military action, but how about something a little more forceful than this weak tea?

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


You know, Allah, you really should have headlined this story:
“Not again: Another reporter lapses into gibberish on the air”

jon1979 on March 23, 2011 at 10:48 PM


Done That on March 24, 2011 at 6:30 AM

(1) if the TV is on a terrible channel
(2) I can see the remote across the room on the mantel
(3) my kid agrees he can reach the remote…

mjbrooks3 on March 24, 2011 at 7:06 AM

Why is a reporter shilling for the White House?
Why isn’t Obama and Biden out there explaining themselves?
Where are Obama and Biden?
They start a war then go AWOL.

Just from the TV news one would think that Hillary is running the show.

albill on March 24, 2011 at 7:34 AM

When the benefits outweigh the costs? For whose benefit are we in Libya? At whose and at what cost? Can we go when the costs rise in excess of the benefits?

Typical legacy journalist shilling for another liberal boondoggle.

MJBrutus on March 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM

Our country’s national interest no longer has anything to do with it, huh? Pffft. Whatta crock.

petefrt on March 24, 2011 at 8:00 AM

Can we ask Obuummer to just write it down, between bracket picks even? Is soccer with slum kids included?

tarpon on March 24, 2011 at 8:26 AM

If (1) there’s a preventable humanitarian crisis looming and (2) the benefits of intervention outweigh the costs and (3) there’s international support for intervening, then “go for it.”

That also describes Iraq in 2003. So is Bush still Hitler?

bitsy on March 24, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Most people think this is all foolishness, and Libya is not Egypt of course, but if you never hand someone a copy of the Constitution how the heck are they ever gonna know what it means?

Get rid of Gadaffi and beat them over the head with the Constitution until they get it. One would think in this day and age, one could ‘CAN’ a Democratic Government(hey Im gonna patent “Governments on a DVD*”), and get these people going inside a week. Separate Islam from the machinations of Government, that should get them started.

Give women equal rights, that should keep them busy.

* Instant Government on DVD
Contains documents for
120 Different Democratic Governments.
82 Tribal governments.
68 Islamic governments.
4 tyrannys (1)
9 socialist (2)
2 progressive/liberal (3)
1 anarchy (4)

(1) warning: these always end badly.
(2) requires lots of other people and their money.
(3) rainbows, skittles and unicorns not included.
(4) no rules required.

All for just $19.95 plus S&H

orbitalair on March 24, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Andrea Mitchell is a reliable waterboy for the Dems.

Oh, and she looks like she applies her makeup with a baseball bat! What’s up with that?

AcronisF on March 24, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Obviously another example of on-air gibberish. Seems to be happening a lot, just watch MSNBC. In a hotel in Albany I actually met the guy who watches that channel. He’s a bit quirky.

mr.blacksheep on March 24, 2011 at 8:53 AM

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!! Oh sorry. Digression.
Look, Thumbelina sings and dances. Its established. Why is anyone leaving up the volume on this? Its like watching the beginning of the looney tunes cartoon show, all singing, dancing, parading around Barack Bunny.
“And tonite what heights we’ll hit;
On with the show this is it!”
Anywho its a spatula AcronisF. A baseball bat would leave “Louisville Slugger” across her forehead.

onomo on March 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM

coldwarrior on March 23: That Obama was targeting things personally…this is a good thing? That Obama was involved in every step of the process is a good thing?

This must explain why they missed K’daffy…twice now.

scituate_tgr on March 24, 2011 at 10:07 AM

that’s great…so, when is someone going to inform Obama?

wildweasel on March 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM

That dried-up old crone could be Mo Dowd’s surrogate mother.

Adjoran on March 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

What’s with this need to give him a “doctrine” cobbled out of a record of non-policy and apologizing every chance he gets to everybody but Republicans. Foreign policy? Homey don’t play ‘dat.

But Chris Matthews has a mission to make Obama look like a real president, instead of a bewildered pretender floundering out of his depth.

What I don’t see is how Andrea Mitchell’s second condition applies here. We’ve spent half a billion bucks at least so far, and what are the benefits? It sounds more like the first condition is driving the whole thing. Our allies have gone farther down the socialist road and no longer can afford their foreign policy impulses, and turn to us to finance them. No matter that we’re the brokest country on earth, we’ve got to shell out to make those ugly images go away, because they make the French feel guilty about not being able to maintain their area of influence in Northern Africa.

The “benefit” will become clear if and when we figure out who the rebels really are, democrats or Muslim Brotherhood. Just like the Mujahedin, who turned into the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

flataffect on March 25, 2011 at 1:22 AM