“I see this as largely driven by incompetence. I don’t see how this nets to a benefit for Obama. Each day Qaddafi remains in power, the more incompetent Obama looks.”
The competency question, again, is not of real concern to Obama. (His public relations firm — the mainstream media — will take it quite personally, however, whenever Obama’s competency is questioned.) But Obama is uninterested in judgements made in the context of “bourgeios principles.”
And what is of benefit to American interests (your interest in analyzing this) is of no interest to Obama.
From Obama’s point of view as an orthodox Marxist, who thinks his thoughts in Marxist terms, his work in Libya is to “increase the contradictions,” and that’s exactly what you are seeing.
My proposal is that only if you view this Libya event as having nothing really to do with Libya does it begin to make sense. I know, that takes me outside of the normative standpoint, but that’s where I believe you have to go. What I fear is that Libya is about the United States, and that when that becomes manifest, Libya will be no more than a footnote to what comes.
For instance, do you recall how after 9/11 it was but a few days before the Left began to blame that attack on the United States because of the degree to which the United States was to blame in the oppression and humiliation of the Muslim world? That coincided pretty much with bin Laden and al Qaeda’s point of view.
Well, take that preposterous Marxist and Islamist viewpoint and insert Libya as a fresh predicate for those who would embrace it.