Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya – what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Gaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi – a city nearly the size of Charlotte – could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a No Fly Zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.
That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international communi
ty to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us – it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and – more importantly – a task for the Libyan people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all – even in limited ways – in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security – responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dig
nity are upheld by all.That’s the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States – in a region that has such a difficult history with our country – this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith – those ideals – that are the true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
I thought this speech was one of the President’s best in a while. He needed to draw a very difficult line, as you mention, and largely I think he succeeded. He made a pretty convincing case that the US did lead in forging an international consensus for action, that we’re handing over the reins now, and why this multilateral approach was necessary.
<
p>Of course, this intervention will be judged by its ultimate outcome. The best situation, of course, will be if the grassroots opposition in Libya manage to topple Qaddafi without further US/NATO military operations beyond enforcement of the no-fly zone, intelligence support, etc (i.e. no ground troops), and then that opposition manages to maintain a stable regime.
<
p>I’m still skeptical that this will happen, but at least as far as this speech goes, I think the President did what he needed to do — lay out a responsible vision for limited intervention in this one case.
His crack about Iraq – and I call it that because it didn’t actually advance or clarify the discussion of Libya – will look especially bad if we are in Libya in 8 years. But, he’ll be out of office by then, so he need not worry, I guess.
Actually, it did. A lot of people are wondering why we aren’t aggressively pursuing regime change – i.e., making Khadafy’s exit an explicit goal of American military action. Obama was exactly right to explain what that would entail by reference to recent events.
If it isn’t worth it to pursue regime change, then why is it worth intervening at all? If the goal isn’t to remove Khadafy, then how do we know when the, ahem, mission is accomplished, and can disengage? If the rebels start to lose anyway, then what?
<
p>Now, if Khadafy hangs on, it is a victory over American policy, and yet we have deprived ourselves of the means of ensuring victory for our policy.
<
p>The whole thing strikes me as a split-the-baby policy into which we were reluctantly dragooned (probably because we owe Europe one after Iraq/Afghanistan). In short, the manner in which this Libyan thing has come about has me concerned that polar-opposite-of-Bush indecisiveness is a problem.
when they not only discover weapons of mass destruction in Libya, but also find Osama Bin Laden and oil!
Failing that, they can then make a declaration of pursuing regime change.
We all were thinking it. I appreciated him just coming out and saying it outright: ‘Been there, done that.’
<
p>The delicate balance was how to say that without the “Last soldier to die for a mistake” sentiment.
“To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. When the congress approved military action.”
<
p>While we may have had strategic interest in bombing Lybia, since Qaddafi has given up his old terrorist ways there was no imminent national security threat. Even the president has now said that, as has Robert Gibbs. That being so, it was incumbent upon him to seek congresional approval.
<
p>I find it mildly amusing that people who attacked George Bush for legally going to war with the approval of congress, carry water for this president.
Most of us have expressed cautious support and mild optimism. Some have expressed outright opposition.
<
p>Some of your friends carried water for George Bush by calling us traitors. I’d like you to note that that is not being done to them. And then, next time you get one of your equivalency urges, recall this moment.
<
p>
The Constitution gives Congress the power to “declare War.” They did not do so in Iraq – the Iraq AUMF was assuredly not a declaration of war. And, of course, the President remains commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
<
p>So what is your basis for saying that it was “incumbent upon” the president to seek congressional approval, and what is the relevance of Iraq to that question? Those are not supposed to be loaded questions – I just want to know what constitutional provision you’re relying on.
without the need for even consulting Congress with glib pronouncements about “commander in chief” like John Yoo I take that to be a tacit acknowledgment that one is defending the indefensible.
<
p>That Eabo et al. and the regular “blue” posters here can so easily make a do si do, without chagrin, demonstrates (as if it required further demonstration) just how utterly vapid our political parties actually are.
<
p>
I am not arguing that the president’s commander-in-chief powers are unlimited. I’m not actually taking a position either way on whether Obama did or did not need to consult/get the approval of Congress for the Libyan action, since the question is complicated and I don’t know enough about it.
<
p>I just want to understand EaBo’s position.
There is inherent authority to move troops, I believe for less than 90 days according the War Powers Act, without, or at least before, consulting Congress. Bush DID get congressional approval, which is nice though I disagree on the merits, but for international issues not directly threatening to the US I’m actually more interested in the Security Council’s favorable input, which Bush did not get to my dismay. John Yoo argued for “war powers” to deny civil liberties and due process. Many constitutions have clauses for emergency rule and giving the President broad powers, but ours is emphatically not one of them. As the top of the military hierarchy I believe POTUS has authority to issue commands to uniformed troops, but he does not get to arrest, detain, torture, etc. others outside of legally proscribed methods.
argued that the Predident’s war powers exempt him from law.
<
p>I don’t particularly care whether the claimed exemption is something that makes me uncomfortable or not, and therefore don’t see all that much of a distinction thus far.
<
p>That President isn’t legally obligated to answer to the UN; he is so obligated to the Congress, and he hasn’t.
The War Powers Act requires that the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops, which he has done, and requires authorization for more than 60 days, for which he still has time. The Congress has the power to declare war and simply committing troops does not constitute war. The President has broad commander-in-chief authority which Obama has exercised, but not general “war powers”, which is where Bush overstepped.
if the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because it intrudes on the President’s commander-in-chief powers or for other reasons, then it’s a moot point. And AFAIK the Supreme Court has not weighed in.
If committing troops does not constitute war, what does? If Mexican troops entered El Paso and started shooting the place up, would that be an act of war? How about if Russia landed troops in Sitka? We’ve had a bunch of wars in the last 50 years, and none of them were declared.
…but when I think of war I think of more than just manueuver of troops. I think of full-scale mobilization of society. I think of the World Wars where food was rationed, peacetime factories were commandeered for wartime purposes, citizens were asked to buy liberty bonds, etc. We’ve only declared war 5 times in our history, and while it could be argued that others should have been (I think war should be declared before calling up a draft, for example.) I’m comfortable acknowledging that in these times the US can and should be able to contribute to international efforts without a declaration of war.
Iraq was not a war. Afghanistan is not a war. Vietnam was not a war. But I can assure you that to the residents of those places, those were wars. I think you need to work on your perception of what constitutes a war.
Libya I think is less than all of those because it’s an international effort in which we are participants, more like our interventions in Bosnia or Somalia.
I find it both sad and amusing that you’re more interested in the legalisms – does the President have a constitutional obligation to obtain congressional approval for the action in Libya, or does he not – than the question Obama was actually addressing, which is whether a full-scale commitment to regime change in Libya would be a good idea.
Why should the President have to wait for a note from the Congress, the Arab League, the UN, or any other group. It’s positively an un-American suggestion.
<
p>Oh, never mind.
… from the UN, just not from congress.
<
p>And to be clear, I’m fine with not going to congress in principle although I think like usual he is in way over his head and pretty clueless about what to do. “Consult with our allies” will have to do. Good thing we have Sarkozy huh?
…which in some of these international ventures is at least as important, IMO. I’m pretty sure the War Powers Act only requires Congressional approval for missions greater than 90 days.
And now most Dems are in favor of a unitary Executive?
<
p>My brain hurts!
that conservatives such as yourself have displayed absolutely no consistency on Libya (see, case in point, Newt Gingrich, who amusingly fancies himself as presidential material). Not surprisingly, they are more interested in scoring political points by attacking Obama than anything else.
<
p>I also find it amusing that the same conservatives who insist upon “original intent” and textualism when interpreting the Constitution were so willing to throw it away when it came to President Bush’s actions in Iraq. Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution granted Congress the power to declare war. The Framers specifically gave the legislature this power, well aware that this differed from standard practice at the time.
<
p>The AUMF Bush received from Congress in 2002 was in no sense a declaration of war, especially if you believe in original intent. Given that the Iraq War has been an 8+ year conflict, as opposed to the more limited Libya operation that so far would seem to be consistent with the terms of the War Powers Resolution, it would seem that the Iraq War raises more constitutional problems than Libya. (Indeed, Obama notified Congress within 48 hours of the commencement of the military operation in Libya, consistent with the statute.)
<
p>I would ask you why you are being inconsistent when it comes to the respective actions of Bush and Obama, but the answer is so obvious it doesn’t need to be said. I for one, believe that constitutional practice since the time of the Constitution’s adoption establishes that the Executive need not wait for a formal declaration of war to comply with his responsibilities under Article II. The difference between the Iraq and Libya operations is not constitutional, but rather that, as a matter of foreign policy, Iraq was unilateral, unnecessary, and poorly conceived, whereas Libya has been a multilateral effort with a more limited mission.
<
p>Nevertheless, I’ve expressed my skepticism about even this engagement, since this certainly has the potential to become an open-ended operation if (as I suspect) Qaddafi is toppled and the opposition is unable to establish a stable regime in his absence. I know a lot of fellow liberals here at BMG are also skeptical or even outright opposed to Obama’s Libya operation.
<
p>That’s a hell of a lot more consistent than conservatives who didn’t raise a peep during Bush’s long slog in Iraq, yet flip-flop mercilessly on the Libya operation because Obama is now commander-in-chief.
The Republicans are consistently opposed to Democrats, and so any Republican inconsistency must necessarily be the result of Democratic inconsistency and/or flip-flopping.
<
p>Democratic are, by contrast, consistently in favor of whatever they want right at that particular moment, notwithstanding any position previously adopted, and can therefore consistently disregard whatever inconsistent position they took yesterday, which is, in any event, by definition not inconsistent because they wanted whatever that was at that particular time.
you’re quite right — both sides exhibit copious amounts of inconsistency. But surely you recognize that when its comes to military engagements, liberals are quite a bit more likely to take sides against a Democratic president (as with Libya) than conservatives are against a Republican president. By way of contrast, conservatives suddenly flip-flop when a Democratic president is commander-in-chief, while liberals pretty consistently oppose military intervention. That liberal position may be incorrect, but at least it’s consistent. It’s not like Newt Gingrich, who with his various Libya positions within the span of a few says set new standards for political flip-flopping (at least until Romney gets into the race).
<
p>No one party has a monopoly on truth, despite what partisans often say. But neither is it true that both sides are equally blameworthy for inconsistency on all issues, despite what centrists may say.
Try as I might I still can’t find the part in the Constitution about going to war because the Executive branch says so. Or the oil interests. Who gives POTUS his marching orders?
<
p>“Don’t talk to me about atrocities in war; all war is an atrocity” –Lord Kitchener
We would serve our country better and work in our national interests better by invading mexico than anything over the big pond.
Libya doesn’t look like a military revolt to me, it’s more a popular uprising that proceeded until it got squashed by a military response. Even now the rebels don’t appear to have a military campaign going.
So I’ve tried to come up with the Obama Doctrine.
<
p>1. The US will use its power unilaterally if necessary when our national security is directly threatened.
2. Short of a direct threat, the US will use power under the following conditions:
<
p> – Our values and interests are threatened.
– The burden of both actions and consequences are shared:
– The goals must be clear, achievable.
– Intervention should have a specific and clear benefit to people facing possible genocide.
<
p>So what am I missing?
Seems like he’s reserved the right to intervene in almost any situation.
<
p>I think intervening in Libya was probably the right thing to do, but I wish that we actually adhered to the principles that we claim to follow. Obama’s speech was about Libya, but it could have just as easily been about Sudan, DRC, Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. Of course, we won’t do anything in those countries (even though I think they are just as compelling cases for international intervention). We should at least be honest and say that we will intervene only when we feel like not when actions clearly harm X, Y, Z interests.
<
p>Obama’s articulation in this speech unfortunately reminds me a lot of Bush’s, but perhaps without the more cavalier, big-swinging dick attitude: the Bush doctrine without the douchiness.
finally someone said it. As much as this speech was about Lybia…what’s done is done. All except from the major gap left out about what the US’s “end goal” is in this conflict. I know we have pledged to not send in troops, but what happens if the UN can’t force Gaddafi out?
<
p>Also, with this new Obama doctrine better outlined, what does it mean for the rest of these countries going through the same civil warfare and mass slaughter? Are we going to finally realize that there has been some minor issues in Sudan? What about Syria? The list goes on and on…
Every situation is different. Have the other countries’ leaders cracked down the way Qaddafi has? I acknowledge that we have had consistency issues and I’m open to being persuaded that at least some of those countries do warrant intervention. However, I’m not interested in establishing a “doctrine” which has to be rigorously adhered to.
I think that if you are going to claim that certain principles drove you into one conflict, you should have to answer questions of why those same principles did not drive you into another, similar conflict.
<
p>It’s about being consistent and honest, which I understand are not common traits among politicians.
<
p>My problem is not so much with intervention in Libya as it is with the justifications being bogus. In his speech Obama gave the reasons he’d like everyone to believe were the real reasons for intervention. I think it was more about erring on one side of a potential political nightmare involving a dictator we hate. Like most things he’s done (and like most Presidents), I think Obama is adhering to political calculations, not values. That may or may not be a good thing, but I don’t think he’s being honest with us.
<
p>
…about whether other countries meet that criteria. Circumstances may be part of the equation. To say, “We are intervening in country A because conditions X, Y, & Z exist,” should not be construed as, “We promise to intervene in country B if conditions X, Y, & Z exist.” There may be a condition W that puts a monkey-wrench in that logic.
I think all the countries I mentioned originally would fit the bill, plus probably some more (Somalia certainly impedes commerce). He said that we are intervening because of X, Y, Z. I think that if those are the criteria, and those exist elsewhere, then he should answer why we are not intervening in those other countries. I agree that there may be a condition W that prevents action, but I think that is incumbent open him to explain that W. He gave us X, Y, Z and said that’s why we’re going in. I can speculate as to W, but he did not.
<
p>I suspect that W is something along the lines of “we’ll intervene when X, Y, Z is present and when it involves a higher-profile country, with a leader we hate, that produces oil and I would be toast politically if I did not make a quick, decisive action.”
<
p>Libya seems to be the only one qualifying under that criteria at the moment.
<
p>To be clear, I’m not opposed to intervention, I just have problems with the explanation and the process. Frankly, I would welcome much more international intervention to prevent genocide. I thought that was supposed to be one of the ideas behind the UN, but they’ve failed, largely thanks to us.
What are our goals there now, and what are we doing about it?
<
p>
This a refreshing discussion. I was wondering what the consensus would be here: I see no one decidely optimistic, but no calls for BO’s impeachment, either.
<
p>I was actually in favor. I took quite seriously the Colonel’s claim that he’d show “no mercy,” and what was by all accounts going down in Misrata would seem to bear that out. (BTW, we’ve yet to see the kings and, uh, “presidents” of Yemen, Syria, Jordan or Bahrain shelling hospitals). What was accomplished in the first 96 hours or so appeared to me to be the ethical thing to do, the statesmanly like thing, and, if not politically popular, a statement by the President that he wasn’t bound by any ideological sentiment other than that promoted by Samantha Power and Susan Rice–each of whom I believe has some real street cred whe it comes to matters of genocide (an overused term; maybe “annihilation”).
<
p>Reports of increased CIA involvement make me nervous. Deposing Quaddafi may still be morally justifiable (more so that the “aw, shucks, let’s let bygones be bygones” approach adopted when we tore up his “rogue nation” certificate and welcomed the ostensibly reformed ne’er do well back into the “community of nations” or whatever it’s called when you’re not riding dangerously high on NATO’s shitlist), but it’s going to be damn hard be very statesmanly when Q’s gone and the country, if it still merits the name, is basically controlled by well-armed gangs and tribes that don’t even qualify as “militia.”
<
p>I would have stopped at stopping a potential Srebenica. Outside of that, it IS an internal matter.
<
p>If you’re interested in the implications of BO’s actions in light of the War Powers Act, there reams of great discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy. Scroll through. After wading through a great deal of very learned debate, looks ike a draw to me. Tie goes to the runner. Some Democrats (and Greens…) are making fools of themselves even using the term “impeachment.” And I’m not even sure what “consulting with Congress” means. Tempe and soul-searching with Dennis Kucinich? A phone call to Scott Brown soliciting his insights on inter-tribal conflict around Benghazi? Asking John Boehner’s personal permission to unleash hell? Trying to explain to Michelle Bachman that, no, his plan isn’t to rain cruise missiles on all the Christians in Libya AND take out Quaddafi in order to establish the Caliphate?
<
p>No, I’m not advocating for a unilateral executive.I’ve seen a whole lotta that in lifetime. But when you look at Congressional approval ratings, you have to wonder–why on earth is everyone suddenly so adamant that this group they don’t tust, and clearly don’t much respect, be “consulted?” Is there any conceivable matter–domestic, business, what have you–upon which YOU would “consult with Congress?” I’m not trying to make light of the question–it’s just interesting to see Congress’ input suddely so significant. Which isn’t to say that it isn’t or shouldn’t be required, and I fully expect that when the term prescribed by the WPA draws to a close, if the US is still involved military–and I would expand that definition to include enforcing a no-fly zone–Congress will need, not only to be consulted, but to vote to contine [fudning] the operation.
<
p>There are any number of worst-case scenarios arising out of this, but I think Obama’s going to face plenty more and bigger trouble than Libya will ultimately offer, and this incident may be turn out to be small potatoes if the rest of the region implodes. Egypt isn’t exactly resolved, and a government unfriendly to Israel could turn out to the ultimate headache. Or maybe a democratic Syria comes to terms with Israel–another possibility. Or 5 more autocracies go down like dominoes, leaving the House of Saud alone, well-armed, and determined not to go the same way.
<
p>In other words, it’s going to be a crapshoot, and a committment to isolationism, or a refusal to roll the bones, will only get you so far. I’m gravely disappointed in many of Obama’s military decisions, but I feel there’s a certain deftness at State and the NSC that makes me about as comfortabe wih this President as I’d likely be with anyone when it comes to what’s shaping up to be a muti-level chessboard, where the pieces are back, white, and many shades of gray.