No leadership zone

At least he isn't on the White House balcony with 
a lyre composing an ode* to a burning Washington.

While French, British and American forces enforce the no fly zone over Libya, the Leader of the Free World takes a holiday down in Rio** after an exhausting week of basketball predictions, reminding donors that they shouldn't take the august presence of Mr Barack Hussein Obama for granted, and driving his equally inexperienced Secretary of State spare with his utter inability to make up his mind.  Not only did Mr Obama manage to make Mr David Cameron look like a world leader (something that I thought impossible), but his complete abdication of his responsibility also made the UN look responsible, and even the French courageous.  Unfortunately, his leading from... no not the rear.  Unfortunately, his not leading at all while raiding a Brazilian buffet caused his coalition of the confused to fall apart even as the first bombs fell because the Arab League didn't really think it was anything except bluster.

Okay, let's be fair.  It's not Mr Obama's coalition.  The only reason the United States is in this war is because the women in The One's government insisted–most notably the woman whose foreign policy he ran against in the primary election.  That, and the suspicion that Mr Obama signed the authorisation because he thought someone wanted his autograph.

Though Mr Obama, when he can be bothered, insists that the US is a junior partner, the junior is doing most of the fighting to the point where he's set something of a record for Nobel Peace Prize winners.  He's also driving his base, his media supporters, and even his party 'round the twist.

Meanwhile, the adults are asking what the goal of this exercise is.  Is it to topple Khaddafi (he of many spellings)?  Knock out his air force?  Attack his ground forces?  Protect the rebels?  Act as their air support?  Are we now allied with them?  What if the UN turns chicken?  How long can the Americans remain in theatre without congressional approval?  Is Cameron going to stop taking the stupid pills and recommission HMS Ark Royal and the Harriers?  Is this abandoning of American leadership a disaster or a blessing considering who's at the helm?  What happens if Khaddafi pulls a Saddam and crushes the rebels anyway?  What are the Empty Suit and the Boy Prime Minister going to do?

I'm all in favour of taking out tyrants whenever the opportunity arises, and at gunpoint gets the message across to other potential candidates, but cynical sabre rattling under a load of wet behind the ears governments not lead by a US president who whines incessantly about having to do his homework when he could be out sending autographed photos to himself has Elpinbay written all over it.  This quick exercise in gunboat diplomacy that three great powers have stumbled backwards into may more likely turn out to be exactly the sort of under-committed, hit soft and never have any real goals sort of adventures that spills a lot of blood while leaving the tyrant in question firmly on the throne. It also seems to me that going after the mullahs in Iran before they vanish behind the nuclear umbrella is a far more urgent concern than unseating a psychotic transvestite. 

Welcome to the foreign policy version of those nightmares where you show up for class naked.

Update: The Audacity of Golf.

Update: Meanwhile, off the radar, Egypt takes a step away from despotism and towards totalitarianism.

*Yes, I know. 

**Samba anyone?  Come on, it's not like anyone's going to war or anything!