Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Last week’s interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman brought a rare admission from President Barack Obama.

Friedman asked, “What’s the biggest thing you’ve learned doing foreign policy?”

“I’ll give you an example of a lesson I had to learn that still has, you know, ramifications to this day,” Obama replied, “and that is our participation in the coalition that overthrew Gaddafi in Libya.”

The president was quick to defend the “lead from behind” 2011 intervention, itself, as “the right thing to do,” because “had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria, right?”

Or Iraq, perhaps?

He decided to attack Libya militarily, Mr. Obama went on to explain, precisely “because Gaddafi was not going to be able to contain what had been unleashed there” (via the Arab Spring) and thus, “there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction.”

Does that make any sense? Was Gaddafi’s inability to wield more complete and total power over his rivals within the country plausibly be the rationale behind the NATO intervention?

In acknowledging his error, the president said, “What is also true is, I think we underestimated . . . the need to come in full force — if you’re going to do this. Then it’s the day after Gaddafi’s gone, when everyone’s feeling good, everybody’s holding up posters saying ‘Thank You, America!’ At that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that don’t have any civic traditions.”

Of course, it isn’t possible to “re-build” that which you admit never existed.

And it isn’t the role of the U.S. Government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor


  1. Drik says:

    He neglected to mention that he instigated and subsidized the Arab Spring.

  2. Rick says:

    I’ll side with this democrat:

    ….We left when the government of Iraq refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement. Now Iraqi leaders want our help again. But the U.S. military is not a yo-yo.

    The stated “mission” of the Iraq War was to build up a million-man armed force to defend Iraq. We did that. That force is fed by $100 billion in oil money each year. Yet it has been defeated, again and again, by what one Arab official called “a few hundred psychopaths.” Iraqi soldiers outnumber the Islamic State by more than 100 to 1, but they won’t fight. In one town, a band of ISIS fighters announced their approach with a devastatingly effective weapon: a bullhorn. Iraqi soldiers fled.

    If the Iraqis won’t defend themselves, then why should we? And when will we start solving our own problems?

    This effort makes a mockery of the Powell Doctrine. No national security interest is threatened, we don’t have a clear strategy, we’re not using overwhelming force, and we have no way out.

    We have to get past this bizarre notion that every time there’s something in the world we don’t like, we bomb it.

    Mr. President, when it’s our money, and it’s our blood, then it’s our decision. And now, the American people are saying “No!”

  3. Karen says:

    To state the obvious: In addition to our government’s overspending; the growing mess in this world, is our total lack of foreign policy. I am not saying we should be involved in every conflict. Lord NO! but our lack of leadership by our commander in training, has brought the tyrants out of the woodwork.
    Say what you want about GWB, but the world leaders respected him. there is zero respect for Pres Obama.

  4. Lynn Atherton Bloxham says:

    Dear Karen, I am of a mind that the more we intervene, the worse we make things and the more we will see a “growing mess.” I am not an Obama fan, however I think the problems existed long before Obama or Bush were even born. So we need to look beyond these people and make difficult changes in our international dealings and goals.

  5. jatr4 says:

    “Say what you want about GWB, but the world leaders respected him.”

    That’s the biggest piece of horse shit I have ever seen. The world saw Bushy Wushy as the buffoon that he is/was. He had ho idea that there were Sunni, Shia, Kurds and Christians in Iraq. He thought they were just one sect.

    Get a clue!!!!!

  6. MoreFreedom says:

    In my humble opinion (IMHO) Obama is lying again. The real lesson he learned, is that intervening with the military and overthrowing a government leads to instability and death. And when doing that in the Middle East, it fuels the radical Muslims who are happy to kill those who don’t convert.

    He’s just throwing lies up on the wall as excuses for his stupidity in killing Ghadaffi and hope something sticks.

    He destabilized the region, helped terrorist groups (who no longer had to fear Ghadaffi) and this led to the deaths our our Ambassador and 3 other US govenrment employees in Libya. Which he also lied about.

    Obama is a consistent liar: refusing to take the discredit for the results of his actions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2018 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top