Secretary of State John Kerry took part Monday in a multilateral meeting on the future of Libya, a country perennially riven by war, crime, and terrorism. The nations represented at the meeting gathered to show support for the Government of National Accord currently attempting to establish order in the country, restore the rule of law, and secure Libya’s borders. Kerry said on Monday that the Libyan “government is here, supported by the international community and ready to go to work.”
Practically speaking, however, there seems to still be some uncertainty about exactly what the international community can do for Libya. At a background briefing Sunday before the ministerial meeting, a Senior State Department official gave a rather muddled reply to a question about possible future military intervention in the country:
In the past year alone, both the White House and the State Department have employed the term “intervention” dozens of times in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, president Obama admitted just weeks ago that “failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya” in 2011 was probably his worst mistake in office. This failure, along with recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, may explain the State Department’s reticence about being pinned down on future commitments to “intervention.”
In any case, professed ignorance of a word so commonly bandied about by diplomats seems curious and disturbing at best, disingenuous at worst. However, in an administration baffled by the meaning of “boots on the ground” and “red line,” perhaps it’s par for the course.
