You claim Obama backs down when confronted by a "stubborn Gadhafi". In my opinion recent news point to the opposite. It is true that Obama is not all gung-ho in the same way as GWB, starting wars without any international support. This should not come as a surprise, the US public is war-weary and is not very interested in waging another war, and it should not be interpreted as weakness. Despite the lack of public posturing all signs point to a strong backing from the US here. Three countries with large muslim populations as, well as China and Russia, have been convinced to support the resolution in the security council. This was not an easy feat, especially considering China's opposition to any meddling in a country's "internal affairs". It is highly unlikely that it happened without the US playing an active role. The actual military operations will not be possible without the support of the US navy and airforce. It is not likely that this resolution would have passed if the US was not on board and prepared to take an active role. The mere fact that Obama chose to establish an international consensus before entering a war should not be interpreted as a weakness. It shows proper respect for the UN and international law, it ensures massive support for the operation and not the least it lead to a UN-resolution with much more far-reaching effects than what could have been achieved unilaterally.
- 6:49 PM
from the article: Obama is proving feeble in face of Mideast strongmen