Memo To World: Barack Obama is not yet president

There has been a storm of criticism of President-Elect Barack Obama over his silence on the subject of Israel's action in the Gaza Strip. International commentators, especially those in Britain and the Arab world, are furious that during a crisis of this magnitude, the president-elect takes the time to go on vacation and says nothing substantive to the Press.

Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment - and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush's strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush's bias or simply does not care.

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realize has even begun.

While part of me wants to snidely point out that this is the problem with running on "change" and not policy, I really have to remind the world Barack Obama is not president yet. Asking him to step up and begin taking action is like asking for a violent coup in the USA. Until January 19, George W. Bush is still President and official American foreign policy is set by him. And Barack Obama - and the American people - understand this. An orderly transition of power is key to a successful democratic republic. And the fact that Obama remains silent at this time merely raises his reputation among those who would otherwise be his political foes.

So, foreign powers, please stop criticizing Obama on this point and start wondering why, after years of complaining about American interventionism, your own governments are not acting but instead standing around waiting for America to intervene.

All Too True

From Nate Beeler and townhall.com

The other side of the Russian/Georgian conflict

A new commenter here at Mod-Blog challenged us to take a different view of the conflict between Russia and Georgia than was common wisdom, so it seemed worthwhile to post a pro-Russian editorial that lays out their case pretty well.

Last Friday, after the world’s leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia, which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years. The majority of the region’s population are Russian citizens. Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers. The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians...

There can be little surprise, therefore, that Russia responded to this unprovoked assault on its citizens by launching a military incursion into South Ossetia. No country in the world would idly stand by as its citizens are killed and driven from their homes. Russia repeatedly warned Tbilisi that it would protect its citizens by force if necessary, and its actions are entirely consistent with international law, including article 51 of the UN charter on the right of self-defence.

Honestly, I don't find this convincing that Russia is being "proportionate" in its response, even assuming all of this is true. But it does a good job, I think, of laying out Russia's perspective on the action.