Obama explains limits, goals of Libya policy
Thanks to Western intervention and imposition of a no-fly zone, Libyan rebels who a week ago seemed doomed to indiscriminate massacre by Col. Moammar Gadhafi are now pressing their assault on the town of Sirte, the dictator’s hometown.
In a few minutes, President Obama is scheduled to brief the nation about our goals in implementing the no-fly zone over Libya, and the limits of our commitment there.
There are two ways to discuss the topic, as a matter of foreign policy and as a matter of domestic politics. Let’s deal first with the politics. As a newpoll by the Pew Research Center reports public attitude:
“Nearly half of Americans (47%) say the United States made the right decision in conducting air strikes in Libya while 36% say it was the wrong decision. Fully one-in-six (17%) express no opinion.
On balance, however, the public does not think that the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal in taking military action in Libya. Just 39% say the U.S. and its allies have a clear goal, while 50% say they do not.
Notably, most people do not view the United States as the lead actor in the military operation. Fully 57% say that the United States “is just one of a coalition of countries” involved in the military mission; far fewer (35%) say the United States “is leading the military action.”
There is little indication that views of the Libyan military operation are breaking along political lines. About half of Republicans (54%) and Democrats (49%) say the decision by the U.S. and its allies to launch airstrikes was right. Among independents, 44% see the airstrikes as the right decision, while nearly as many (41%) say they are the wrong decision.”
Nobody, including Obama, knows what will happen next in Libya. That’s why so many of the potential GOP presidential candidates have been so noncommittal about the policy. Nobody, not even the Libyans, have any real idea how this will turn out.
However, we do have a pretty good idea what would have happened without Western intervention, and it wasn’t going to be pretty. Thousands and more likely tens of thousands of Libyans would have slaughtered by their own government for daring to have dreamed of something better than dictatorial rule by a crazed despot. Here at home, many of those now sitting on the fence watching would have been condemning Obama as weak and feckless for standing by while the carnage played out.
I don’t know what the president is going to say, but I do find the conjecture about some kind of “Obama Doctrine” emerging from this incident rather odd. I don’t see a doctrine playing out here; I see a rather simple practical calculus at work: How much can you acccomplish, and at what risk? For a relatively small investment — certainly a far smaller investment than an eight-year occupation of Iraq that cost thousands of American lives and a trillion dollars — we are creating the conditions in which Libyans will have a chance — a chance — to create a better future for themselves.
U.S. attitudes toward interventions are changing, and probably for the better. But if you have a chance to save thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of lives, and create an opportunity for many thousands more, at relatively tiny risk to yourself, basic decency says you take that chance.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
360 comments Add your comment
Peadawg
March 29th, 2011
8:21 am
” but other than that I tend to lean toward Peadawg’s side on this.” – Thanks Normal, btw. Atleast there’s one rational Democrat on here.
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:21 am
Oh, I see, Doggone. It’s OK to invade a sovereign nation for oil if the least-qualifed Commander in Chief says so, but not if any previous Presidents did.
Got it.
I’d like to welcome all the newest members of the 101st Chairborne to their squadron. You know who you are; just raise your hands if you previously did not support Bush, but voted for Hope & Change.
Your wings are in the mail. You’ll recognize them by the fact that they look the same no matter which way you wear them.
Tools.
Normal
March 29th, 2011
8:22 am
Peadawg @ 0818,
No it’s not. I learned a long time ago you don’t borrow trouble.
Those two countries are not committing genocide and one of them has nuclear weapons. A completely different scenario.
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:23 am
“His arrogance grows”
next thing you know, they’ll start calling him “uppity”
hi all! not here for long, just wanted to pop in and say good morning
Doggone/GA
March 29th, 2011
8:23 am
“It has always seemed to me that if you wanted to entice a nation to become Democratic, instead of pointed a gun at them, you had to present the best possible reason to change and you did that by EXAMPLE”
Being an example is not enough when people are held captive by a terrorizing superior force. They need to know that help is available, and they need a trigger to revolt. Tunisia provided the trigger…now we can help. Note, please, that I said “help” – not “do it for them”
Normal
March 29th, 2011
8:23 am
And a grand morning back to you, USinUK…
Finn McCool
March 29th, 2011
8:24 am
At least we didn’t have to watch Boehner sobbing in the background during this speech.
Mick
March 29th, 2011
8:26 am
Good afternoon usinuk….yes normal let’s welcome all to the melodramatic united state of america….home of the brave (I think) and land of the free. (express yourself – absolutely)
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:26 am
“Being an example is not enough when people are held captive by a terrorizing superior force.”
Darfur?
Rwanda?
North Korea?
China?
See how open ended this Obama doctrine is? Who can count on our help in the future? Just the little guys whose a$$es we can kick easily?
Call it like it is
March 29th, 2011
8:27 am
Whats even more sad about all of this wonderful support and how non Bush Obama is, is the fact we have no idea what so ever who these libyan rebels are or to what they represent. We already have reports on one commander Abdul Hakim who fought against us in Afghanistan, was detained in Guantanamo and is now one of the rebel leaders. Yet once again this is a great thing. Please Jay spin this one……….
Peadawg
March 29th, 2011
8:27 am
Normal,
http://www.670kboi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=113&itemid=29649601
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-border-guards-kill-five-defectors-to-china-2181890.html
Not genocide, but shooting protesters and defectors is close enough. Seems like a reason, according to Obama last night, to attack…err I mean police.
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:28 am
Hi Normal!! how’s my favorite bike-ridin’-ladder-avoidin’ grandpa?
good morning, Mick – hope life in SoBe is good
Jay
March 29th, 2011
8:28 am
Peadawg, it’s been a problem going back at least as far as LBJ’s decision to invade the Dominican Republic, and includes Nixon’s bombing of Cambodia, Reagan’s invasion of Grenada, Bush I’s invasion of Panama and use of troops in Somalia, and Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo.
You could make a good argument that none of those actions were constitutional, but congressional leaders of both parties understand it would be dangerous to try to tie a president’s hands to that degree. They also don’t know how to write language that would apply wisely to all those situations, having tried and largely failed with the War Powers Act.
So as a result, we have this situation. Note that the complaints from Congress are very muted. I found it telling, for example, that Boehner’s criticism amounts to a claim that Obama isn’t being very clear, although Boehner himself has yet to take a clear position either in support or opposition.
Mick
March 29th, 2011
8:28 am
dave r
You can please some of the people some of the time, but you’ll never please all the people all the time…
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:29 am
Mornin’ USinUK!
JohnnyReb
March 29th, 2011
8:29 am
Just the facts folks. Take off those Liberal blinders. Just because Repubs screw up does not justify Obama.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 29th, 2011
8:29 am
Uhhh Dave, the factors stated by the the President last night were more numerous than the single factor you have stated.
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:30 am
“we have no idea what so ever who these libyan rebels are or to what they represent”
so, we should wait until they form a body politic complete with platform before we save them from sniper bullets and bombs?
Mick
March 29th, 2011
8:30 am
usinuk
Life is good, finally got some much needed rain last night and sobe is rockin, can’t find no parkin….
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:31 am
top o’ the morning, Dave!
question for the class … are my dogwoods out, yet?
I miss dogwoods and spring in Atlanta (which is easy for me to say as I’m not an allergy sufferer)
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:31 am
“You can please some of the people some of the time, but you’ll never please all the people all the time…”
I’m just looking for a shred of consistency from either side, Mick.
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:31 am
“is rockin, can’t find no parkin….”
Granny Godzilla
March 29th, 2011
8:31 am
Call it like it is
Abdul Hakim?
Normal
March 29th, 2011
8:32 am
USinUK,
)…plus the fact I don’t remember very well (at least according to my wife). 
Doing great! Did I tell you I’m going to be a Great great Grandpa again? Number three in September! If I told you, please forgive my pride in my pride (
Mick
March 29th, 2011
8:34 am
**I’m just looking for a shred of consistency from either side**
Why dave, who would’ve ever thunk that you possess an iota of an optimistic streak? Strike me down…
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:34 am
“Uhhh Dave, the factors stated by the the President last night were more numerous than the single factor you have stated.”
Yeah, Keep. He had a reason sure to please virtually EVERYBODY in some way, shape or form – except for people of principle. Humanitarian mission for the libs (who can say no to THAT?), bombs and action for the right wing hawks, coalitions for those who don’t believe in our nation’s exceptionalism – it had EVERYTHING!
Doggone/GA
March 29th, 2011
8:35 am
“I’m just looking for a shred of consistency from either side, Mick”
Don’t hold your breath waiting, you’re never going to get it…from EITHER side.
Granny Godzilla
March 29th, 2011
8:36 am
Normal
Congratulations! A great grandpa!
You are well blessed……
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:36 am
Normal – 8:32 – MAZEL TOV!! Congrats!! and HUZZAH!!! wonderful news!
yay, you and all the Norms!!!
Mick
March 29th, 2011
8:38 am
usinuk
I am much better on ice skates, which doesn’t do me any good down here. I still swim in the ocean despite my sharkaphobia.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 29th, 2011
8:38 am
Dave…you almost had it but then you fell over the edge. His statement last night was also consistent with his prior statements.
AmVet
March 29th, 2011
8:39 am
Good morning all.
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Neo-cons and chickenhawks from sea to shining sea pretending to be the reasoned voices of the American anti-war crowd?
What next, the bloodlusters in the lunatic fringe make a run on peace signs? HA!
Duplicitous and transparent – that’s our cons…
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:39 am
Mick – I hear ya on the sharkaphobia – I don’t swim where I can’t see what I’m swimming with.
btw … I seem to have missed some kind of major announcement last week … is Paul going somewhere?
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:41 am
“His statement last night was also consistent with his prior statements.”
Of course! That’s because he had so many to begin with, Keep.
willie lynch
March 29th, 2011
8:43 am
How is it that America and it’s allies can impose a no fly zone on a country in the midst of a civil war and not have this viewed as an act of war? And who exactly are the Americans helping in this rebel offensive?
If this were America trying to put down an insurrection inside it’s borders and other countries were to do this how would we see it?
To me this action is no different than the overthrow of Mosaddeq in Iran, Allende in Chile, or Lumumba in the Congo, the only difference is this is being done in the open. Libya’s people have a right to fight but they also must win or lose on their own merit unless America wants to once again appear to be the “Great Satan” in North Africa and the Middle East.
Doggone/GA
March 29th, 2011
8:45 am
“Libya’s people have a right to fight but they also must win or lose on their own merit”
Like WE did when we refused assistance from France? (NOT)
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:46 am
Doggone – 8:45 – LaFayette is not just a town in NGA
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 29th, 2011
8:46 am
DaveR…you cotinue to post statements without basis as if they were the truth but you have yet to make a claim and prove it. Just unsupported ranting which has become the norm for the right…no matter what its anti-Obama
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:49 am
Really, Keep? Prove what I said was without basis.
Granny Godzilla
March 29th, 2011
8:49 am
Doggone/GA
Don’t forget Spain and the Dutch….
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
8:50 am
And Doggone? Still waiting for that major stregic reason we are interfering in another country.
Oil was not a good enough reason for you and yours when Bush did it. Why is it OK now?
poison pen
March 29th, 2011
8:50 am
However, if we can get in, get out, lose NO American lives, and then hand off operations to our allies, I can marginally support the president on this
AmVet, please show me just one (1 ) time this has ever happened.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
March 29th, 2011
8:52 am
DaveR…why dont state your assertion clearly and the basis of proof.
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
8:56 am
“Still waiting for that major stregic reason we are interfering in another country.”
to save people from being killed by their “benevolent leader”???
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
9:05 am
““Still waiting for that major stregic reason we are interfering in another country.”
to save people from being killed by their “benevolent leader”???”
Darfur?
Rwanda?
North Korea?
China?
If that is the reason why you support military action, USinUK, you could at least be consistent.
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
9:06 am
“DaveR…why dont state your assertion clearly and the basis of proof.”
Keep, I state ALL my assertions clearly and with proof. Please specify which one(s) you cannot understand.
Jay
March 29th, 2011
9:06 am
So Dave R., you believe we should intervene everywhere, regardless of cost, or nowhere, regardless of cost. Is that the consistency and principle that you’re looking for?
AmVet
March 29th, 2011
9:06 am
pen, in most respects, Bosnia comes to mind.
American/NATO intervention to end the mass genocide/holocaust was WIDELY supported. And only AFTER UN sanctions and peace talks had not worked.
The Dayton peace accords paved the way for the arrival of a 66,000-strong NATO peacekeeping Implementation Force. The international community establishes a permanent presence in the country through the office of an international peace overseer.
We lost ZERO American lives. (Excluding two pilots who were killed in a training mission accident.)
Numerous leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes by the United Nations.
The warring sides have made apologies and the region is peaceful and stable now.
It was a masterful campaign, that the Republicans still seethe over, amplified by the deadly, bumbling, botched debacle that they foisted on the nation in the last decade…
Call it like it is
March 29th, 2011
9:09 am
“Call it like it is
Abdul Hakim?”
Sorry Granny I completely forgot about your total reliance on Google.
Try Abdul-Hakim-al-Hasadi. That should help you.
Jay
March 29th, 2011
9:10 am
In other words, you have no workable plan, Carlos.
Law enforcement in this country already has its hands full trying to do its current job. Now you want to take them off that duty and assign them the herculean task of finding 10 million people among a population of 300 million, proving they are illegal and shipping them somewhere else.
Donovan
March 29th, 2011
9:12 am
Once again, you liberals kill me. How do you say, hypocrite? Can’t you people be innovative or original in your adjectives? We keep hearing the same sound bytes as, “indiscriminate massacre, slaughter, dictatorial rule by a crazed despot, carnage, a chance to create a better future for themselves, gross and systemic violations of human rights”. Where were you self-righteous crusaders when Saddam Hussein was the poster child for the same above inequities? Oh, that’s right…you were on the other side of the political spectrum denouncing President Bush because he was a Republican. However, here we are in a similar situation with a “crazed despot” and you all want us to engage in military action to help out the poor Islamic people that the Arab Union won’t help out. First of all, your Hope & Change president hasn’t a clue as to foreing policy ideas on the matter. Even the Sec. of Defense said there is no national security interest in the matter. Your community organizer is riding in the back seat of the U.N. bus offering up our military to do the heavy lifting without even an end-game strategy. The “patriotic rebels” are commanded by an idividual who single handedly recruited the second largest amount of jihadists and suicide murderers to fight our troops in Iraq. These Islamic rebels are not only fighting their “crazed despot”, they are also rounding up, torturing, and killing all the black Africans in their country in a systemic cleansing. Hillary Clinton is wearing the pants in this affair because Obama hasn’t a clue as to the prosecution of any exercise in force, other than community activism. We don’t belong there. The idea of planting the seeds of democracy in an Islamic country is a joke. You know it and I know it. These people who follow the tenets and ideology of Islam and Mohammed march to another drum beat. Did Mohammed truly give a rat’s rear about democracy when he plundered and ruled his way through life? So, give up the self-righteous reasons for defending your president and his mishandled foreign policy decision.
USinUK
March 29th, 2011
9:13 am
aaaaand, I gotta go …
have a great day!
willie lynch
March 29th, 2011
9:32 am
@Doggone/GA
March 29th, 2011
8:45 am
Did France know who they were helping? Did the Americans have a delegation to speak for them.
The U.S. guided a sterile overthrow of the Mubarak government. An opposite strategy was employed in Iraq. Which one has cost the U.S. more?
Dave R.
March 29th, 2011
9:34 am
“So Dave R., you believe we should intervene everywhere, regardless of cost, or nowhere, regardless of cost. Is that the consistency and principle that you’re looking for?”
Jay, please stop trying to prove that you are an idiot, rgardless of how easy that is. You saw my very clearly stated beliefs last night, and they have not changed. I am merely trying to point out the inconsistencies in others, and am trying to find out just what the limits are of this latest version of the Obama Doctrine from those who agree today with this intervention.
And to reiterate last night’s (and my consistent belief in when we should act, here is last night’s post: “No, Jay, we should not start wars, nor interfere in any nation’s progression nor destruction unless their actions DIRECTLY affect our national security.
Iraq II did NOT. Afghanistan did ONLY to destroy the Taliban’s ability to support terrorism. Libya did NOT. Bosnia did NOT. Grenada did NOT.
Shall I go on, or am I abundantly clear and consistent enough for you?”
TnGelding
March 29th, 2011
9:35 am
But at the risk of creating your own “collateral damage?” That’s the part I don’t like. The bombing is also immoral. That said the mission will succeed, and those of you worried about an exit strategy need not. You have to enter first. This is nothing but a live military training exercise that can be paid for with money allocated for that purpose. Gadhafi is welcome in my home if he just brings a mil of what he has hoarded.
Shmoe
March 29th, 2011
9:37 am
Bush 2 intervened in Iraq – folks called it war for oil
Reagan intervened in Iran – folks called BS on that deal too
Obama intervenes in Libya – not a big deal
Hypocrisy is THICK in here. Foggy…
TnGelding
March 29th, 2011
9:45 am
Reagan intervened in Iran?
Reagan should have taken care of Kadhafi if he was guilty as charged.
Nobody said it wasn’t a big deal. But as long as we continue not to lose any lives and keep the collateral damage to the absolute minimum, many think it was the right thing to do, considering the charges against the madman made 25 years ago.
buck@gon
March 29th, 2011
10:54 am
“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.”
Jay,
This is the typical flip-flopper, not even the typical Bookman who lies and obfuscates. These stupid words of our dear leader justify military action almost anywhere, including against the New Black Panther party. From the mouth of Obama and echoed by Bookman:
Never thought I’d see it, and I expect now to sell popcorn for conservatives as liberals contort their supposed values to justify whatever the hell their concerns are of the moment. According to the ethics of liberalism we can now attack anyone for almost any arbitrary justification. I do actually sense an Obama doctrine coming out of this: to protect the oil generating capacity of France and Germany and to twist the role of NATO way out of line with its charter. To involve us in a “war of choice” whether or not anyone is a threat to us, as his Robert Gates, SECDEF, clearly said two days ago.
Let’s be honest though. The president got caught flat-footed, letting Hillary run around foggy bottom talking about how awful Ghadafi was. Obama was just packing for Brazil, after having filled-in his brackets and eating frozen pizza, while playing with his Presidential action figures, and getting indigestion when he found out that Hillary was making HIM look like he didn’t care about people somewhere. He wasn’t going to have a slaughter on HIS presidential record, at least not one where there were television cameras already reporting.
So, while he did dither when Ghadafi was vulnerable, when the regime could have actually toppled at a critical point, he wasn’t going to get caught again not being the guy with all the answers and all the right things to say. Or at least, he wasn’t going to miss a chance to say that he had all the right things to say. There is nothing at all regarding foreign policy that isn’t out of place here. Obama has absolutely no interest in making good foreign policy decisions, and he wouldn’t even know how to formulate good policy because he sees his own country as a source of evil greater than most other countries in the world.
Why not prevent slaughters in Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan (next door), Somalia or Arizona (with the Mexican cartels running around there)?
Answer, because the press doesn’t care about those issues, and so the President doesn’t have to either.
buck@gon
March 29th, 2011
11:01 am
Wow,
I think what you’re seeing is the collapse of the Jay Bookman we all know and love (some of us) or put up with (most of us). The new Bookman is about MY OBAMA, RIGHT OR WRONG. I too am frustrated by all Bookman’s unanswered questions. I’m afraid those questions are just going to fester until your distaste and disgust for Jay will grow.
I am at a loss for explaining why Jay would write such an absurd blog as he did today the failing logic of which clearly undermines the liberal position on US military intervention–hell, let’s just say WAR–around the world. I’d think he would weary of people nailing him in his error. It may be that he posts become fewer and fewer, like Cynthia Tucker’s, who is so restrictive in how one can respond to her, that with her blogs criticism is almost like poking a corpse.
I see no way out for Jay or liberalism, for that matter. Hopefully, this losing of the argument (or abdication) is the beginning of the end for them in a rhetorical sense. In that case, we can clearly expect more direct attacks on indirect issues like “character” or “hypocrisy,” –as if we ought to listen to liars in the first place.
Lil' Barry Bailout
April 1st, 2011
2:26 pm
™