Leading in the real world

Thursday, March 31, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

President Barack Obama’s speech Monday night laid out a reasoned justification for the United States’ involvement in Libya. The president navigated a very difficult situation, demonstrating how he sorted through the issue and consequences before ordering the military to enforce a no-fly zone over the country.

But, as expected, the president’s rationale wasn’t good enough for Republicans. Instead of engaging the issue honestly, Republicans relied on their same old theme — the president is weak and timid. Some Republicans complained that the president failed to exercise American power, waiting instead for a United Nations resolution and international support. Others said he should be stronger and pursue removing dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

But there is nothing weak or timid about the president’s actions. In his speech, he reaffirmed the nation’s position in the world, making a strong statement about America’s values and principles. Saying the country has a responsibility to defend freedom, he ordered the military action to stop a massacre from happening in Libya. That’s an appropriate use of American power.

And what’s wrong with rallying international support? The fact that Obama brought together a coalition shows leadership, not weakness. Our allies will help bear the burden and the cost of the effort. That’s important considering the military is stretched thin with two wars and a humanitarian relief effort in Japan.

But nothing would mollify Republicans, who want to tear the president down politically. So what would they do if they were in power?

To hear some of the Republicans talk, they would have sent the military immediately — without the support of the U.N. or the international community — and removed Gadhafi. But that’s foolish. America doesn’t need to return to the Bush doctrine, which essentially boiled down to the Old West philosophy of “Shoot first, ask questions later.”

But consider how the Bush doctrine played out in Iraq. George W. Bush rushed the nation into Iraq to oust a dictator, basing his decision on faulty evidence and waging war absent of any type of exit strategy. The cost of that decision has been immense — thousands of American troops have died and tens of thousands more have been wounded in Iraq, and the U.S. has spent billions of dollars.

A simplistic black-and-white view of the world looks at military action as if it was a video game that is quickly executed. But that’s not reality. Are the president’s critics really willing to send ground troops — putting them in harm’s way in Libya — to rout Gadhafi? And what do the conservative budget hawks in Congress think about this? It costs money to use the military. Of course, they didn’t consider any of that when it came to Bush’s wars. They just went guns blazing — funding it all on the national debt.

The machismo of the Bush administration, which equated the country’s power with its exercise of military force, is thankfully gone. Republicans can grouse about the president’s foreign policy, which some have complained is “nuanced,” but the situation in Libya is complex, and Obama has handled it well so far.