What we heard from Obama on Libya (UPDATED)
UPDATED at 8:35 p.m.: I’m not sure we got answers to all, or any, of the questions I originally asked below:
What are our military objectives? — I think President Obama would have you believe the answer to this question is “achieved.” He said we had stepped in “to stop a massacre” at Benghazi. He said NATO was taking the lead, and was at pains to describe our role going forward as limited: “intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications.”
But the question is: Until when? Until when will we be performing these tasks in Libya? Obama said both that regime change could not be a military objective or else our coalition “would splinter,” and that we would pursue regime change through other means. Does that mean we’ll be providing a military role to complement those other efforts at regime change until regime change does occur?
Bottom line: This was a “mission accomplished” moment sans the banner and aircraft carrier. But we all know the Iraq war didn’t end on that carrier.
Who exactly are the rebels? — We got not a hint at this question, only talk about the need for the Libyan people to govern themselves. Well, OK. But are the rebels the group to provide that opportunity? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with the “Libyan opposition” — one assumes that means the same group that’s fighting Gadhafi militarily — in London Tuesday. Maybe more details will be forthcoming after that.
Can we really hand off this mission? — Obama certainly made every effort to say the answer to this is “yes.” But that list above, about intelligence, search-and-rescue, etc., suggests there is a limit to the limitedness of our involvement. Most of all, we’ll have to wait and see how well NATO can enforce a no-fly zone without U.S. pilots on patrol.
Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? — Here again, Obama tried to make the case that a) because our involvement going forward will be so limited, we aren’t really tying up many resources in Libya, and b) he has no appetite for pursuing other “interests” in places like Syria and Bahrain. OTOH, what exactly did he mean by “I believe that this movement of change [in the region] 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”? Will we “stand alongside” any of them the way we’re standing alongside the Libyan rebels? Seems to me he left the door open a bit there.
Are we in this thing until Gadhafi is no longer in power? — See answer to the first question.
Does NATO’s assumption of command of the operation mean our troops’ participation will actually decrease? — See the answer to the third question.
Are we going to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya? And does that mean we cannot live with a partitioned country? — We’ll have to wait and see. The answer seems to be that Obama chiefly hopes Gadhafi will go more quietly, or at least quickly, than that.
ORIGINAL POST:
White House aides first suggested President Obama would not make a national address about the war armed conflict kinetic military action in Libya, but it turns out that policy didn’t last very long, either. The president will give a nationally televised speech tonight from the National Defense University in which he’ll try to explain what we’re doing in Libya and why.
I for one am glad that, contrary to what the above-linked Politico story indicated, Obama has not waited to give an “explanatory address to outline his elusive endgame to the nation until the path ahead becomes clearer.” It would be comforting to know there was an endgame, however elusive, envisioned before the air war was launched.
As for specific questions that Obama ought to answer tonight, the New York Times’ Ross Douthat has a pretty good short list: What are our military objectives? Who exactly are the rebels? Can we really hand off this mission? Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests?
If I could go a bit further, I’d ask to hear the answers to these questions:
- Does the president’s belief that Moammar Gadhafi “has lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to rule” — I didn’t know Gadhafi ever really had either one, but whatever — mean we are in this thing until Gadhafi is no longer in power?
- Does NATO’s assumption of command of the operation mean our troops’ participation will actually decrease?
- Are we going to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya? And does that mean we cannot live with a partitioned country?
Anyway, that’s a brief summary of what I’ll be listening for tonight. How about y’all?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter
Or tweet this blog post: Tweet
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
80 comments Add your comment
Peter
March 29th, 2011
10:27 am
WOW Kyle….. the first time admittance…..
And to those who keep invoking Iraq: If you think we went into Iraq without a clear aim or endgame, and that this was a mistake, wouldn’t you prefer that we not repeat that mistake?
WOW….. SO….. do Deficits matter ?
Kind of funny how Republican’s like to start the WAR, and then leave someone else to fix the problem they created.
JF McNamara
March 29th, 2011
10:27 am
I think he meant that milestone to be the removal of Qaddaffi. That’s what that whole negotiation process he mentioned was about.
I think the strategy was pretty clear. It was to either:
A. Allow Khadafi to leave or step down on his on.
B. Allow a civil war but no mass atrocities/genocides from the Kadafi regime.
So long as we aren’t putting lives at risk, I have no problem with that strategy. Its low cost and it lets the people of Libya decide for themselves what happens.
Finally, since when does the President have to detail his exact plans to the media? We are still negotiating with other countries on what our role will be, and we don’t really want Qadafi to know them, do we? I didn’t ask that of Bush, and I don’t ask that of Obama.
So long as no American lives are losts, the costs are low, and we are winning, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he making the best decisions with all the information.
Here’s a question for you. When you advocated that we go into Libya and declared internationalism a failure, what was you endgame? Why don’t you define that for us?
Can't Wait
March 29th, 2011
10:38 am
Interest rates will be going up like a rocket and it don’t matter what the Fraud Reserve does. Inflation of the money supply via the “QE’s” is in full effect and will ravage the buying habits of Americans, especially food and energy. The dollar and the economy are a house of cards.
Lets bomb and occupy Libya so we can hasten our demise and the democrat and republican political lemmings can finally go over the cliff for good. If were lucky, well inspire another 9/11 style attack and jump the shark even sooner. Can’t wait.
retired early
March 29th, 2011
10:46 am
This is an interview with former representative from SC Bob Inglis who was Republicans with a 93% conservative voting record who got unseated by a Tea Party candidate.
It is MUST reading for all Americans if you care about our country…but especially so, for you Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh followers. This is your chance to “look at yourselves in the mirror” from one of your own. Please take the time to do a google search and type in the subject. Do it for your country…I have never read a political interview more enlightening than this one.
Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty | Mother Jones.webarchive
No More Progressives!
March 29th, 2011
10:55 am
Do you know the answer to that question any better today than you did before the speech?
No.
Heck, we ain’t done in Bosnia yet.
No More Progressives!
March 29th, 2011
10:56 am
Peter, have you ever solved a problem in your life? Ever?
Charley del Pizzo
March 29th, 2011
10:58 am
Gee! I screamed “impeach Bush/Cheney” every time an American dies or was wounded in Iraq. Didn’t work for me either. I’m not saying either was/is right. At least the President acted under a UN sanction. What did Bush have. A meeting in Crawford in 1999 before hi was even the nominee? And if being against the Bush/Cheney Iraq whatever it was is hypocritical, then I’m a hypocrite.
Hacks, Hacks, and More Hacks
March 29th, 2011
11:08 am
KW generally asks some reasonable questions here. But when he gets the answers, we know in advance that he’s either not going to like them, trust them, or just come up with more questions.
That’s the way it works when neo-con/Tea Partier/Republican sympathizers ask such questions. It’s a political strategy. In the last couple of decades and in the last couple of weeks, right-wing leaders and pundits have repeatedly demonstrated that when a Democrat is in the White House, the rule is to stay on offense–even if it means flip-flopping like a fish out of water..
For example, if the Democratic president wants send troops to the Balkans, as Clinton did, then criticize that. If the Democratic president wants to bomb terrorist camps in Afghanistan, as Clinton did, criticize that. If a Republican president (one who campaigned on a humble foreign policy and against nation building to portray himself as the anti-Clinton) wants to start a war of choice, no matter the cost, support that. Subsequently, if a Democratic president doesn’t want to implement a no-fly zone, criticize that. If that same president decides to implement a no-fly zone, then reverse yourself and criticize that too.
The decision not to target Gadhafi is being criticized by Republicans, but these same Republicans would be criticizing the decision if Obama had announced that he is targeting the man.
These critics are hacks, and they know it.
yuzeyurbrain
March 29th, 2011
11:22 am
I hate to agree with Pat Buchanan but he has it right this time. When you are going after the snake you better go after the head of the snake or it will come back to bite you. Let’s get rid of Khadafy quickly with overwhelming force and not worry so much about who does it. Remember, victory has many friends while defeat is an orphan. That will solve our problems with the Arab world right there.
Ralph
March 29th, 2011
11:37 am
If we had air power during the War Between the States could not a European country have come to the aid of the State of Georgia during Sherman’s campaign?
retired early
March 29th, 2011
11:44 am
I strongly encourage everyone to read this interview with former SC rep Bob Inglis, Republican who lost to a Tea Party backed candidate…Please read.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty
JF McNamara
March 29th, 2011
11:44 am
We’re non combatents target during Sherman’s campaign? History shows they shot troops and destroyed infrastructure. It does not show indiscrimiate killing of women and children.
Jefferson
March 29th, 2011
11:47 am
The critics are petty and the president made his case. Like it or not.
Peter
March 29th, 2011
11:54 am
Hey No More Progressives!….Please tell us how we are to pay for the Iraq WAR ?
Please tell us how the Iraq War has helped American’s here at home.
Joe Mama
March 29th, 2011
11:58 am
“Ok, to everyone defending the president’s speech, answer me this: At what point — I’m not asking for a date in time, but an event or achievement — do we say we’re done in Libya? Do you know the answer to that question any better today than you did before the speech?”
No, I don’t. And I’m as opposed to our involvement in Libya today as I was opposed to it yesterday. The speech has nothing to do with my opposition, FWIW.
“And to those who keep invoking Iraq: If you think we went into Iraq without a clear aim or endgame, and that this was a mistake, wouldn’t you prefer that we not repeat that mistake?”
Yes. Wouldn’t *you?*
But let’s flip the script; if you think that involvement in Libya is a mistake, then did you think that involvement in Iraq was, too? Why or why not?
Old timer
March 29th, 2011
12:06 pm
The speech was well-crafted, skillfully delivered and said nothing. He is now Candidate Obama ad this sounded like a campaign speech. Also someone needs to read Bush’s going to war speech…actually very, very similar.
Peter
March 29th, 2011
12:17 pm
Here are the two questions……..”But let’s flip the script; if you think that involvement in Libya is a mistake, then did you think that involvement in Iraq was, too? Why or why not?”
Both are a mistake. There has been no clear way to fund any of the wars, while the country is mired in all types of monetary issues, from health care, tax reform, Social Security, and a huge deficit brought on by exactly the same spending in the other two wars.
We would have needed to increase taxes to fund the Iraq War, but Bush decided to cut taxes, thus increasing the deficit to a ridicules level.
Our country is not in physical danger, has not been in physical danger. The danger is what happens to American’s after their houses further decline in value, and the US debt increases.
The value of the dollar is in decline, and we can have another catastrophic implosion. What does that mean for family’s that need gas, food, and other necessities ?
Seems that the corporations in the US want the government to back their interests with the military, as they expand around the globe, but as the tax payer funds this military action, he get zero in return from the corporations.
This scenario is a Lose Lose situation for the typical American Taxpayer.
Ron Paul has been correct all along…..and we are behaving like the Roman Empire before their collapse.
Darwin
March 29th, 2011
12:37 pm
Kyle – Support Our President And Our Troops. Anything else is treason.
fair and imbalanced
March 29th, 2011
12:47 pm
If you dont support our President in a time of war, then you are against the troops and supporting terrorists…oh wait..
Will
March 29th, 2011
12:53 pm
As usual, public opinion is not hard to follow. Republican newspaper writers and republican radio and tv entertainers do not support the action and do not believe the President adequately addressed their concerns last night.
If you are a partisan politician, same thing if you are a republican politician and the reverse for democrat partisan politicians.
And somewear in the increasingly shrinking arena of elected leaders, there are a handful who either do or do not support this effort regardless of politics.
Do you really believe any republican towing the line to run for president would honestly speak to this issue in a manner contrary to the expectations of the republican political base?
What’s that you say…..democrats do the same thing? Of course they do but is that the standard to which you wish republicans to adhere, that of being no better than democrat politicians?
Holly
March 29th, 2011
1:18 pm
We quit listening – every word out of that man’s mouth is a lie.
Get Real (the original)
March 29th, 2011
2:43 pm
Hey Peter or is it Peter-less; you might want to check your calendar. It is March 2011 so get with current events and stop living in the past..
Peter
March 29th, 2011
2:49 pm
WOW…. Get Real (the original…..Kyle has brought up the past…….plus learning is about understanding History.
You must be the Copy.
Peter
March 29th, 2011
2:53 pm
Hey Get Real (the copy) did the current deficit start in the future ?
Peter
March 29th, 2011
3:16 pm
Here is what the Republican’s gave us….. both in this state which is Republican run….and as the result of the Bush administration….. a NOW Fact for Get Real (the copy).
Atlanta Business News 1:08 p.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Housing price index sags to ‘99 levels
An index measuring metro Atlanta home prices slid to its lowest point in 11 years in January.
According to the latest Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Index, released Tuesday, existing single-family home sale prices declined by nearly 7 percent in January compared with the same month in 2010. Atlanta’s index sagged to 99.59, just below the 100 benchmark score representing prices at the start of 2000. It was the first time metro Atlanta’s score was below 100 since December 1999.
Get Real (the original)
March 29th, 2011
3:45 pm
Peterless….no doubt the deficit started under Bush, what’s your point… continue to spend like a drunken sailor…
BTW, you can thank you special pal Bawney Fwank for the housing problem…..pure and simple
tscali
March 29th, 2011
4:23 pm
peter,
Please tell us how the Iraq War has helped American’s here at home.
have you seen osama’s favorability rating in the arab polls? he’s not too popular.
Peter
March 29th, 2011
4:48 pm
Hey Copy….. this statement is incorrect……”BTW, you can thank you special pal Bawney Fwank for the housing problem…..pure and simple.”
WASHINGTON – Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.
Also Copy……if the government didn’t keep spending the economy was going to implode into a depression….Even Warren Buffet said that.
Michael H. Smith
March 29th, 2011
6:26 pm
Libya Action Creates Risks for Obama
Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, has raised the possibility of impeaching President Barack Obama for ordering aggressive airstrikes against Libya…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/us/28iht-letter28.html
Glad all the impeachment talk is just come from the right now that dear leader “stepped in it”? LOL
When Bush was President the left couldn’t stop talking about the Constitution and how they thought Bush ignored it. However, Bush, unlike obumer, did consult Congress in compliance with the Constitution.
There was NO STATEMENT from this right saying the U.S. shouldn’t have got involved as claimed by the usual loony left’s over-heated rhetoric that doesn’t like any criticism of their ‘dear leader’ obumer for doing things the WRONG DAMN WAY!
obumer consults the Arab league, the U.N., NATO, U.K., France, etc but does he consult the U.S. Congress? Duh!
Congress should have been the first to be consulted. The Arab league should have been asked, if not demanded, to play a greater role in solving what is an Arab problem, in the Arab world, were the very presence of U.S. is frowned upon with resentment, even when the U.S. is over there to serve the best of intentions.
We’ll see how this thing evolves Kyle but if ‘dear leader’ doesn’t sharpen-up his game, we including our allies, could be in for serious trouble in the days ahead without greater Arab league nation participation.
Get Real (the original)
March 29th, 2011
6:59 pm
One more thing Peterless, if you think doubling down on the national debt by massive deficit spending was healthy for the economy you have already proven to everyone reading this blog that you are a blithering idiot…