On Monday, President Barack Obama addressed the nation regarding the current military action in Libya attempting to expound on the motivation for the no-fly zone, the status of the current situation, and the plan for the future in that country. His speech was chided by Republicans, moderately supported by Democrats and questioned by the media.
Obama began by sounding the call to action as he spoke of Gaddafi’s forces cutting off supplies to cities that were under Rebel control and using aircraft to strike these Libyan citizens. If the reasoning behind Obama‘s order for military action was to stop a government’s attack on its own citizens, where are the similar attacks on Yemen, Bahrain and Syria? Are these other governments not also guilty of stifling the flames of revolution by ordering attacks on protesters? Why does Obama choose Libya over these other countries? The only explanation offered by the President is that action in Libya was in America’s best interest, but then fails to define what those interests are. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated on Tuesday that Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States” which would suggest that our national security was not threatened by any violence occurring within the Libyan borders and if that is true, then what is this “interest” that Obama refers to?
As anyone who owns a car knows, gasoline prices in the United States have been on the rise due particularly to speculators unease about recent Mid-East violence. As recently as this morning, Los Angeles gasoline prices for regular unleaded gasoline began to average over 4.00 a gallon, and people across this country already feeling the pain of an economic slump, have been further pained at the pump. Is this the “strategic” and “core” interests that Obama refers to in his address to the Nation? What are the alternative answers and if there is no other answer where are the cries of “war for oil” from the left? Bush goes to war to protect a people against a vicious dictator and it’s about oil, right? Obama does and it is about protecting “national interests.” To assume this however is to assume that Obama had intended the use of force to begin with, which due to weeks of inaction could have never have been his intention.
In the post cold-war world, the United States has remained the lone superpower and has been at the forefront of most “cooperative” international military actions in different places across the globe. As Gaddafi became increasingly defiant to the international community and violent towards his own people, it was clear to the Arab League, the British, the French and other NATO allies that action must be taken in Libya and a no-fly zone was suggested as early as March 2. Yet, this “urgent action” that Obama ordered was not commenced until March 19th. Now the question must be asked, if as Obama states he is willing to use force “unilaterally when necessary,” and he has stated just how necessary urgent action was, what took 17 days to move forward with a No-Fly Zone? Clearly, as has been shown it was not Obama’s desire, intention, or even last choice to use military action but simply did so to maintain a semblance of international power.
When the UN passed the resolution and NATO agreed to a no-fly zone, Obama’s hands were tied and he was left with one choice: To claim it was all his idea and that he was “ordering” that the United States spearhead the attack and that he was doing so for America’s “interests.” Had Obama sent emissaries to the UN and NATO demanding the no-fly zone, his claim to authorship of this military action might be justified, but this is simply not the case as Obama continually failed to act, failed to decide, and failed to lead in this conflict. The fact that he stands before the American people claiming credit is sickening and huge disappointment to both sides of the political spectrum as well as the international community. The Left, who is eternally disappointed with the leader who they held so much hope for, the right, who endured defeats in 2006 and 2008 at the hands of those claiming an unjust war(Obama leading the charge), and the international community who awarded Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize.
In trying to decide on an over-arching theme for the speech, only one seems appropriate: Ambiguity. At any point does Obama discuss the “goal” of the no-fly zone? Granted, he states it is preliminarily to protect Libyan civilians, however, as early as March 20th, the day after the no-fly zone was enforced, attacks on citizens had all but ceased. Is it time to break out the Aircraft carrier and the giant “Mission Accomplished” banner? Hardly, because under the Obama plan, without a continual enforcement of a no-fly zone, Gaddafi is just one withdrawal away from a complete annihilation of the opposition. How long will American forces be committed to providing this no fly zone? It is unknown. Why? Conspicuously missing from the President’s speech, though clearly outlined in the beginning of the speech, is an exit strategy. As Obama’s 2008 challenger for the Presidency, Senator John McCain described that what we lack is not just an exit strategy, but also a current strategy. Until our current objectives are established, a plan arrived at and implemented, a time frame for removal of U.S. forces cannot be arrived at. It was extremely misleading of President Obama to suggest that our mission has completed because in reality, there will be no scaling back of US forces in the region, only the shift of command from an American commander to a French Canadian commander. Exit? Hardly, and even more alarming it is that American forces will be placed under the directive of a foreign commander. Why may you ask? Obama is no dummy. He saw how things escalated in Iraq and Afghanistan and knows that the same potential lies with Libya. Should violence increase, Obama will conveniently be shielded from criticism as the operations will be in the hands of NATO forces. However, should violence simmer out and stability return, Obama will claim credit for bringing peace to the region.
Perhaps the most frustrating portion of the address yesterday was the source of the address. A man, who had several times previously made statements about Iraq being a “stupid war” and “against it from the start”, was suddenly, quite miraculously, and vehemently for the protecting of a people against a vicious dictator. His actions looked heroic as he proudly looked you, and me and the rest of the American audience and with a straight face stating that we had profound “responsibilities to our fellow human beings” to prevent genocide whenever possible. Obama saw Gaddafi as a threat, not to America, but to Gaddafi’s own people and to Libya’s neighbors, and exploited that as justification in using military action. Remember it was not Obama’s decision to use hard power against Gaddafi forces but rather something he was essentially forced into by our UN and NATO allies. Instead of being a man of principle as he defiantly tried to communicate to the American people Monday night, he chose to follow the old adage with the Obama twist: “If you can’t beat em’, Lead em.’” While Obama tried his damnedest to appear strong and resolute and accomplished in this matter, in reality he is weak, defeated and a coward. When faced with the opportunity to defend not our country, but his own personal belief he collapsed like a house of cards under international pressure. Say what you want to about President George W. Bush, but I hardly think anyone could call him weak, defeated, or a coward. His actions at the time, chided by democrats as unnecessary and “stupid” have proven to be able to establish democracy in the place of brutal dictatorships. While the real results of the campaign in Libya have yet to be seen, very little is being done to usher in regime change, something that Obama clearly said was a secondary goal in Libya. In reality, when the White House would seek to pronounce Obama’s mastery of Foreign Policy, Obama’s only mastery is revealed: Hypocrisy.
