President Obama is facing a chorus of questions over his national address on U.S. military actions in Libya, concerns intensified Tuesday as setbacks suffered by anti-government rebels appeared to undermine the sense of inevitability Obama conveyed about Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi giving up power. Some analysts and lawmakers say the administration is contradicting itself in claiming that the United States is now taking a back-seat role in the military action while handing over the reins to NATO, an organization driven largely by U.S. interests. And questions remain about whether the U.S.-led airstrikes against Gadhafi’s forces and military facilities are necessary for purely humanitarian reasons, as the president suggested, and about whether Gadhafi could be ousted by means other than military force.
In a speech intended to clarify for the nation why the U.S. was involved in Libya, Obama failed to articulate a coherent strategy for removing Gadhafi, said Aaron David Miller, a Middle East peace negotiator in the Clinton administration.
“Without getting rid of Gadhafi, the president cannot achieve his goals,” Miller told The Washington Examiner. “Obviously, the president did not think this through. He set up a strategy of benchmarks that allowed him to extricate himself. It’s the middle option — between doing nothing or doing everything — that always creates uncertainty.”
Obama’s decision to lead the military intervention in Libya riled congressional Republicans and Democrats, who pointed out that similar violence is playing out in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere in the Middle East. But Obama steered clear of making any commitments to those countries, outlining a strategy under which American force would be used only as a last resort, and ideally as part of a broader global coalition that would spare the United States from intervening more deeply in another conflict while fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Republicans — and even a few Democrats — hammered the president Tuesday for either waiting too long to respond to unrest in Libya or overreaching in a country that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was not a “vital national interest.” And, they said, Obama’s call for regime change in Libya is at odds with his claims that the coalition would not forcibly remove Gadhafi.
“If Gadhafi remains in power, you will see a stalemate, the same kind of thing we saw with Saddam Hussein when we established a no-fly zone, sanctions, etc., and it lasted 10 years,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on CBS’ “The Early Show.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney dismissed criticism that Obama lacked a clear strategy for Libya, particularly after a series of dramatic setbacks for rebel forces Tuesday that highlighted concerns that Gadhafi is too firmly entrenched to be removed without heightened military intervention.
“We are obviously pursuing a number of different means, nonlethal means, nonmilitary means, to help bring that about, to pressure Gadhafi, to isolate him, and to create an environment where the Libyan people hopefully will be able to create their own future with the leaders that they deserve and that they pick,” Carney said. “And that’s the endgame that we envision.”
