Liberals/Progressives/Democrats (the whole crew on the Left) voted for Obama in significant part because they thought he was the antidote to the wars that Bush fought. I wonder if any of them have noticed that, on Obama’s watch, there’s actually been more war in the headlines. To his credit Obama continued the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan for quite a while, although he destroyed that credit when he announced in advance planned “pre-victory” withdrawals, giving Islamists time to re-group and turning our troops into sitting ducks. He also expanded the fight to include Pakistan, he took the fight to Libya, and now there is every indication that our troops will be in Syria sometime soon. In addition, civil wars are simmering and boiling all over, and there’s no doubt that the situation between Iran and Israel will soon come to a head.
(It’s worth noting that, even if the liberals have gotten their heads out of their . . . um, whatevers, they’ve been remarkably silent. That is, they’ve ceased entirely the incessant anti-War squawking that characterized the Bush presidency.)
Unlike those few observant liberals who might be surprised by the global war frenzy, I am not surprised at all. First, I’m not surprised that various pots are boiling over. A weak American president is an absent cat — which means that the war-mongering mice can play all over. Nor am I surprised that Obama himself has escalated fights, made them more vicious and impersonal, and taken us to battlefields that Americans haven’t seen before. There is no more aggressive fighter than a cornered narcissist. Cowardice flees when his own sense of self is finally at stake.
I’ve got to run, so this isn’t a very well-developed post, but I just wanted to get it in writing after reading the headlines today.