Voting Present on Libya

So let the truth be told. So far things have worked out pretty well for BO in Libya. The removal of Kadaffi seems to be at hand and this was done at a reasonable cost with regards to the financial investment and without the cost of US servicemen's lives. Most importantly, it was done by the citizens of the country who sacrificed their own lives for a future that they will orchestrate and not by a foreign entity. The people have sacrificed their own blood and appear to be winning and have too much skin in the game to let things slip away. A superior formula compared to Iraq where the US changes the regime and is stuck planning the Iraqi people's future. So kudos to BO.

But not so fast. Lets not forget that Iraq was looking real good until the destruction stopped and the construction was to begin. The real test in Libya is what happens now. I suspect it will be as much of a quagmire as Iraq and Afghanistan are presently. Whether it be Islamic fundamentalists, Kadaffi loyalists, this tribe or that tribe, violence will be a mainstay of all of these dictatorless territories. In that area of the world, in that culture, disputes are resolve by violence NOT by discussions. When will we finally learn this and stop transposing our values on other cultures. Additionally, who knows if and when Kadaffi will be caught. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a few tricks up his sleeve for just this occasion. As a result, as quick as Bo was willing to accept credit for the initial triumphs in Libya he will be just as quick to blame someone else for the inevitable future quagmire that will be Libya.

On this Libyan episode BO as usual voted present. He wanted to be in on the success but he also wanted an out if and when things turned badly. This again demonstrates his personality perfectly. He will not commit to anything without the possibility of blaming others if his plan fails. So he opts not to have plans or lead in any specific direction. He calculates his language in such a way that he can later deny having said certain things or claim he was misinterpreted or taken out of context. He plans in advance his escape plan.

I think this exemplifies why we have too many lawyer politicians. I think they learn in law school the power and calculation of language, how to pick words and formulate their semantics so that they can reverse their positions in the future. Compare the speech of lawyer politicians like BO, Clintonx2, Bachmann to nonlawyer politicians like Ran and Ron Paul ,Howard Dean, Tom Coburn (btw, all MDs). The approach to a problem is completely different and I believe stems from their training in their respective professions. The MDs assess a situation pick the best option/plan and institute that plan of action with conviction. The lawyer, on the other hand, is trained to defend whatever postion he is being paid to defend. He is not trained to pick a position and defend that side with conviction. In fact, he is trained to be able to defend both sides. The doctor puts himself in a postion where he can be wrong but uses his best judgement to present his strongest position (ie. leadership). Whereas the lawyer schemes to create a position or a lack of postition where he can never be wrong or blamed which results in lack of leadership. Perfect case in point, voting present. It is amazing how the different formative training of a physician versus a lawyer translate into distinct leadership qualities and ability, or the lack thereof.