Seeking to sway a country divided and confused by the unexpected air and naval mission against Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi’s government, Obama laid out a sweeping rationale for the action, arguing that it would have been immoral and strategically disastrous to have stood by and allowed Qadhafi to massacre rebels and civilians.
“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,” Obama said in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington.
“It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.”
Obama articulated a broader – if not easily explained — vision of U.S. involvement in future actions, reserving the right to act in the nation’s “interests and values” and arguing that Americans “should not be afraid to act.” But he also cautioned against unilateral action that would result in bloody, protracted conflict and pronounced the country’s days as the world’s police force to be over.
Obama, who resisted deploying U.S. forces to Libya until after the passage of a U.N. resolution and the commitment of Arab League and NATO support, dismissed what he said was the “false choice” between doing nothing and making an all-out ground assault.
“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,” he said. “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….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.
“As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Obama has been buffeted by criticism for his Libyan policy, with liberals criticizing his decision to act without extensive congressional consultations and conservatives arguing that he could have easily chased Qadhafi out of power weeks ago of he had not hesitated for so long. And critics of all stripes say he’s failed to articulate a clearly-defined doctrine for future U.S. policy in the turbulent Mideast.
House Speaker John Boehner has called upon Obama to provide a more detailed rationale and roadmap for exiting the Libyan conflict, and his spokesman said the Ohio Republican was less than impressed by Obama’s speech Monday night.
“Americans waited a long time to get few new answers,” said Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck. “Whether it’s the American resources that will be required, our standards and objectives for engaging the rebel opposition, or how this action is consistent with U.S. policy goals, the speech failed to provide Americans much clarity to our involvement in Libya. Nine days into this military intervention, Americans still have no answer to the fundamental question: What does success in Libya look like?”
Many Americans appear to be confused by Obama’s sudden switch from dove to hawk – and a quick pivot to military action in a third Muslim nation. A Pew poll released Monday found that only 47 percent of respondents said the U.S. made the “right decision” in launching air strikes while 36 percent said the operation was “wrong” – one of the lowest initial approval ratings for military action in the last three decades.
In an effort to quell anxiety over mission drift, Obama portrayed the military operations as near an end, saying, “The United States of America has done what we said we would do.”
He portrayed Libya as a two-phase mission, with U.S. air and naval assets employed at first to keep Qadhafi from overrunning the rebels and killing civilians, and then squeezing the regime through sanctions, freezing bank accounts, an arms embargo and aid to insurgents.
He rebuffed calls by conservatives to wage an all-out ground war against the regime, citing the outcome in Iraq, and said the U.S. will quickly hand-off its command-and-control duties to NATO, assuming what he termed a “supporting role.”
Still, Obama offered few specifics about how and when U.S. forces will exit the fight, saying that many of the operational details will be negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a meeting with NATO partners in London on Tuesday. Obama himself consulted with British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel hours before delivering his address.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said U.S. forces will likely continue to take part in attacks on Qadhafi’s forces for the foreseeable future. But Obama suggested an earlier exit, saying the primary role for American forces would be “intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance and capabilities to jam regime communications.”
Republicans argue that scaling back U.S. operations is easier said than done in a fight against an unpredictable and brutal despot. And some have questioned whether attacks against Qadhafi’s forces in support of the rebels exceeded the U.N.’s mandate and Obama’s authority under the War Powers Act.
“If U.S. military forces were to have responsibility for close air support or execute additional strike missions in support of opposition forces, then that of course would exceed the President’s definition of a limited, supporting role,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a speech earlier Monday.
“Such a mission could last indefinitely and would trigger congressional consideration of our larger role in the war.”
No comments:
Post a Comment