Bachmann: Perfect for Low-Information Voters

Under President Obama's watch, we've seen some fairly radical changes in the Middle East just this year alone. When the Egyptian people rose up against Hosni Mubarak - Egypt's human-rights abusing dictator and, until recently, our man in Egypt - and demanded a more democratic government, Obama refused to support our erstwhile ally, things ran their course, and now the Egyptian people have Mubarak in the dock and are trying to figure their own way forward. No American troops present at all, no loss of American lives, and a step toward greater democratic freedoms in a major, important country in the Middle East has been achieved. Good.

When the Libyan people rose up against Qaddafi earlier this year, Obama did put U.S. military power behind a series of air strikes to prevent Qaddafi from essentially slaughtering his own citizens, but even then that power was led and controlled by NATO. Once more, no American toops present, no loss of American lives, and now the Libyan people have driven Qaddafi from power. Once more, a step toward greater democratic freedom in an important country in the Middle East (well, not geographically, but culturally) has been achieved. Good.

In the midst of the Syrian uprising against its government, President Obama has - so far, at least - refused to get the U.S. involved. Just as with Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, this is a matter for the Syrian people to work through themselves; America should not be in the business of installing governments we like over people who aren't, y'know, us.

And speaking of Tunisia, once again we see a people taking steps on their own to achieve greater democratic freedom, once again pushing out an aging despot, and once again doing so without the U.S. throwing its military might around to decide events for them. Good, right?

One thing you can say about the Arab Spring: regardless of how it ultimately turns out (and history teaches that any sudden change in government can be a tricky thing to negotiate), events this summer have reflected the will of the people involved and not been the forced result of U.S. intervention. Yay!

First Thoughts on Bin Laden's Death

UPDATED BELOW


I just logged in a few minutes ago to look something up on Wikipedia, and was shocked to see the news that U.S. forces shot and killed Osama bin Laden earlier today. So, of course, I went to a few news sites and watched President Obama's speech.

Of course, it is way too soon to know much about what happened and hopefully more details will be coming shortly. But like everyone else who pays attention to and writes about news events, I figured I'd jot down -- in no particular order -- my initial impressions and thoughts after watching Obama's speech.

(1) Isn't it nice to have a competent administration again? Isn't it nice to feel that the United States government actually can accomplish something? Since we let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, and then decided to devote most of our military might to invading and occupying Iraq, I have had a real sense that the United States government just didn't seem capable of focusing on a goal and achieving that goal; still, you would think capturing or killing the mastermind of the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be an important enough goal that we could get past our national ADD for at least a little while. The fact the government was able to finally accomplish this goal now, following hard on the heels of the federal government's speedy and effective response to the tornados that just ravaged Alabama and a lot of the Southeast (in stark contrast to the government's ineffectiveness after Katrina), just makes me feel warm inside, like proof that if we just make sure to give the levers of power to intelligent, competent people then that power actually can be used competently and intelligently.