An editorial in the Washington Examiner, “Libya, Syria expose Obama’s foreign policy incoherence,” April 24 (thanks to David), accuses Barack Obama of inconsistency:
Teddy Roosevelt famously talked softly but carried a big stick. President Obama does the opposite: He talks big but carries a stick that is steadily getting softer. And sometimes he doesn’t say or do anything at all, which is the worst possible situation. Consider Obama’s declaration that Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi “must go.” But after making a clear statement of aggressive intent, Obama refused to apply sufficient U.S. military power to make the dictator’s departure a reality. […]
Meanwhile, the situation in Syria has become a nightmare, with the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad slaughtering protesters in the streets. Nearly 300 protestors have now been killed, with a flood of grisly amateur videos of the clashes exhibiting the horrendous lethality of modern sniper weaponry. Obama’s response has been virtual silence and inaction. Yes, he condemned the shooting of protestors, but, as the Washington Post pointed out in calling his response “shameful,” none of the usual diplomatic actions have been taken to put pressure on Assad. Since Syria is Iran’s closest ally, Obama’s silence on the Syrian crisis chillingly recalls his utter lack of interest in aiding Iran’s democratic protesters two years ago. […]
And that’s the key to understanding why Obama is not being inconsistent. The Assad regime in Syria has for years been essentially a client state of Iran, and Hamas and Hizballah have headquarters in Damascus. So here we see the golden thread. Obama has favored the protesters where what would follow would be an Islamic state, but has been much less enthusiastic when the protesters are acting against the interests of an Islamic state; specifically, the Islamic Republic of Iran.