On the other hand Obama went into Libya without any reason, half heartedly led from behind, failed to secure ANY kind of peace and resulted in a NET change that weakens American security AND prestige. WITHOUT Congressional authorization. Ever.
That is the fundamental American philosophy of military control: military serves the civilian gov't, congress declares war - executive executes it. The fundamentals of American Foreign policy are not static - so your claim that Bush violated them is absurd: Manifest destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, the FDR get involved every where doctrine, the containment doctrine, the end of history doctrine? Laughable - every admin brings its own philosophy of foreign affairs and can and should be judged. Obama's doesn't look very different from Bush's. We're fighting 6 or 7 active conflicts right now. Media just doesn't care.
I have to comment on this to clarify some of the points that were brought up.
Here's the Wikipedia page on the civil war in Libya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war
. There are several links at the bottom if you don't consider Wikipedia to be valid.
Let's start at the beginning. Obama and
several other leading nations in the UN Security Council became involved in Libya because it was in crisis; the whole thing was seen as an atrocity that demanded intervention. At the time this was going on, a lot of people here were arguing that we should have gone in and directly intervened with military force (thankfully we did not). In the aftermath, Gaddafi has been deposed (which was the objective) and Libya is attempting to form a new government. While that has not ensured peace, it was a significant accomplishment and one that should ultimately help stabilize the region. Furthermore, Obama did not "go in," the US played a supporting role throughout the ordeal.
The statements about our weakening security and prestige are subjective. Whenever there is a successful attack on the US it will hurt our reputation and perceived strength. However, our restraint in not
"going in" to Libya has been seen in a positive light by a lot of nations, and our military strength is immense. The American deaths of the Libya are highly publicized because we are talking about prominent officials and terrorism in a political seasons. They are not even in scale to the deaths of US citizens due to the compounding issues at pharmaceutical companies, let alone other foreign attacks/interventions that began before Obama came into office.
The idea that our foreign policy depends primarily on military control is outdated. It depends on economic and geopolitical control (and possibly cultural influence), which is supported by our vast military strength. That means it's important to build relationships and impose our will without direct conflict (like currently in Iran) as opposed to with a show of force (like in Iraq and Afghanistan).
What are the 6 or 7 active conflicts that we're fighting right now? I'm honestly interested in these unreported conflicts that the Obama administration has led us into.