I have been saying for weeks that the Obama administration should resist pressure to get directly involved in Colonel Gaddafi’s ouster from power in Libya. For a long time it seemed like the State Department wanted us to get involved and the Pentagon did not. This is a reversal of the normal approach to world affairs of those two departments, but it might reflect the differences between their secretaries. In any case, Hillary Clinton has finally come out against acting unilaterally:
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports from Cairo that there is “no U.S. support” from the State Department for a no-fly zone over Libya, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead saying that the proposal must go to the United Nations, where it is expected to face opposition from Russia and China.
Meeting with Clinton last night in Paris, Libyan rebels asked the Secretary to launch airstrikes against three airfields, to offer military aid, and to implement a no fly-zone, Mitchell reports.
But the United States is not going to meet those demands, according to an off-camera read out after that meeting — the highest-level contact to date between the administration and the Libyan rebels.
Make no mistake. The president will be unfairly attacked for making this decision, as well as for not going to war with Iran after their sham elections in 2009 and subsequent crackdown.
People who loath war and dislike American interventionism have a responsibility to have the president’s back on this. For once, we didn’t intervene and we didn’t choose war. We didn’t add Libya to our list of responsibilities. At least, not yet.
If Gaddafi survives, be ready to rebut arguments that Obama was indecisive and disengaged.
I think you’re wrong to say “this is a reversal of the normal approach to world affairs.”
Traditionally, I believe that the Pentagon is more reluctant to argue for intervention than the State Department, though this may seem counter-intuitive. It seems that the Pentagon is more sensitive to the risks to the troops, and more wary about maintaining public support.
Libya is NOT our business. period.
You are so right.
Clinton said the UN statement last week. This isn’t new.
She had to walk back the US should do no fly zone that she had implied before.
When Gaddafi massacres the rebels then it will be on our hands. That’s not saying the decision was right or wrong for the US (it’s right) but it’s not a good decision either.
I was strongly against intervention. Then I switched to “not sure.” The developments in the past few days have put me back into the “strongly against” column. For the simple reason that the this is not an air war. The only way for us to intervene at this point would be for us to send in ground troops. That would obviously be a bad idea.
So I guess you’ve been right all along, BooMan.
Andrea Mitchell, like so many Americans, has the news screwed up. What the statement was doing was tossing the decision to the UN Security Council. The request came from the Arab League, not from the US. There is no indication that the US wants to drive the planning of whatever action the UN takes, but wants it to be regionally planned and involving regional forces. The US is not saying it won’t vote for the resolution in the Security Council, but it likely wants a unanimous decision and will not support it otherwise. The US is saying that it will assist the UN and is consulting with Security Council and Arab League members about what that means as a practical matter. Who does what, etc.
These are strikingly different discussions than what has ever gone on at the UN. This is the first time I have heard reports that Security Council members are asking for a practical plan before going to a vote on a resolution. This represents an empowerment of the Security Council by the permanent members that has not happened before. I think that all of the permanent members are conflicted about what needs to be done. Just for example, China risks losing African support no matter how it decides. The same for others among the permanent members.
The US position is not yet fixed in stone. What happens at the UN and what happens on the ground in Libya will be determining for the US decision.
Actually, this process makes the Obama diplomatic team look very smart in its approach and inspires confidence from other countries.
But now the real crisis is in Bahrain. The action of the Gulf Cooperation Council in sending Saudi troops into Bahrain to suppress the protesters has made Iran take notice and object. It looks that Bahrain might become the scene of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran unless cooler heads prevail.
The transformation of Eastern Europe took years to shake out. We are only three months into the revolutions in the Middle East. Events are moving at a faster pace but there is going to be increased pressure for change. This is going to be a process that will not be completed for years. The questions about the best US course of action will be very complicated only because (1) we have a bad history in the region, (2) we are still a military power in the region with domestic pressures against withdrawal, and (3) all of the narrative still revolves around “What will the US do?”
Here’s the thing though, practically speaking how likely is it for the UNSC to come to decision before the rebels are crushed?
It depends on how many troops really have remained loyal to Gaddafi. Libya is huge geographically with long distances between major settlements. Gaddafi’s supply line to the east is now approaching 700-800 miles and the longer it gets the more vulnerable it is. And the more troops Gaddafi draws out of Tripoli, the less secure it becomes.
The rebels say they have put two planes into the air and attacked Gaddafi artillery positions. How much armaments has Gaddafi’s forces held in reserve or have they gone all out for a quick victory, leaving them vulnerable if there is delay?
No one knows what the situation actually is in Libya–not the rebels, not Gaddafi, and certainly not the international community.
And any no-fly zone will be for all aircraft, not just Gaddafi’s military aircraft. How much will this really help the rebels in their current situation?
Or will the no-fly zones come at the point at which air power is spent and irrelevant?
And he we are on day 11 of completely missing the important story in favor of that shiny bauble waving from a stick…
Libya isn’t the issue. Nobody has any plan to resolve it, and they all wish it would just go away.
Bahrain is a turning point that changes everything. The Obama administration is flailing. They went all in on democratization and human rights in Egypt (and Tunisia, but nobody cares about Tunisia), stuck with it for about a week and a half and then gave up the ghost again.
And look what they got for their troubles: no principles to stand on, and a whole bunch of recalcitrant, pissed off allies who don’t cotton much to taking advice from DC anymore. No principles and no allies is a tough place to be. I guess Jordan and Kuwait and I don’t know, Morocco, maybe are still on board, but this hasn’t been a good month for the administration. And that’s not even getting into Iraq and Iran.
The admin better hope Egypt proves itself pliable in the future, or they’ll find themselves in the weakest position any administration has had in the region since WWII. With little room for improvement.
Who’s rebutting? This is Obama’s Rwanda and after Gadhafi retakes Libya and slaughters the rebels by the thousands, we may get a mea culpa from the man. Too bad, again too late.
Intervention in the name of democracy and human rights in situations that are accidental is not Neoconservatism. Why the hell are we spending more on defense, stationing American troops and navy worldwide, than the rest of the world put together? Are we just keeping the military-industrial complex, the corporations, swimming in dollars? Is that what our defense department is really all about?
You have to ask?
It’s the Republican jobs program.
The only way we should intervene in Libya is with UN authorization and clear invitation from the Libyan rebels. Whether that means bombing or insertion of ground troops needs to be specified. There needs to be a clear plan for what needs to be done after removing Qadhafi.
Believe it not, opinion is mixed amongst Arabs on this. I’ve read and heard from quite a few Arab intellectuals that the US should help. Others, sharing Hurria’s opinion, think we would only do more harm and believe that we consider Arabs incapable of handling their own problems.