PJ: At the end of this article I've also posted an article published prior to President Obama's speech. Since all GOP presidential contenders, as well as others on the right, criticized the President prior to his speech (as well as prior to action by the US in Libya), it's interesting to see if his words soothed their fears. Of course we know that did not happen and as they all immediately jumped in with their criticism it appears as if their negative remarks may have been prepared prior to the speech (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52109.html).
However not all members of the opposition were so quick to slam their President, with some even presenting a more thoughtful response such as conservative policy wonk Don Senor who said that Republican criticism over the last several weeks has "not been terribly constructive" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52109.html).
The Sydney Morning Herald
March 30, 2011
Analysis
Obama doctrine of intervention flags reduced role in Libya
By Simon Mann
BARACK Obama has sought to shore up domestic political support for America's intervention in Libya by outlining a reduced military role that is likely to stand as a template for future US intervention in global hot spots.
Rejecting criticisms of his decision to join the international effort against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces, Obama said America had security reasons as well as a moral obligation for acting: Libya's upheaval was threatening to spill over to fragile neighbours Egypt and Tunisia, and Gaddafi was threatening the slaughter of civilians.
But he also made it clear that America could not be expected to intervene ''wherever repression occurs'' - deflecting charges of hypocrisy for seemingly turning a blind eye to other conflicts - or shoulder all the heavy lifting.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Outlining what might be dubbed the ''Obama doctrine'', the President said America's aim was to mobilise the international community for collective action. ''Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves,'' he said.
''Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.''
In his televised address from the National Defence University in Washington, Obama, ubiquitous Stars and Stripes providing a patriotic backdrop, reassured a war-weary American public that the Libya mission would be limited in size and scope. But he declined, again, to put a timetable on the intervention, which political opponents say risks entrenching America in a third conflict in the Muslim world in less than a decade.
On Sunday, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he could not guarantee the mission would be over by year's end. Nevertheless, America's role was being ''reduced significantly'', Obama said, with the UN-backed humanitarian action remaining focused on protecting Libya's civilians rather than morphing into a push for ''regime change''.
''To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.''
Instead, the coalition would rely on political, financial and other pressures to drive Gaddafi from power. But the speech will have unnerved many who see the military action as an uneasy intervention in what amounts to civil war. However much the administration rejects the notion that the coalition strikes have set a precedent, the essential preconditions for the Libya intervention are emerging in nearby Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, where undemocratic governments are trying to suppress uprisings.
Yemen's fate is complicated by the presence of al-Qaeda, which the US has pledged to root out ''wherever they seek a foothold''; Bahrain's by its vulnerability to Iranian influence.
As the US struggles for consistency in its attitude to the so-called ''Arab spring'', the challenges were further underscored by Obama's strong support for the nascent democratic movements across the region.
''The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change,'' he told the American public. ''Only the people of the region can do that.
''But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change 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.''
As commander-in-chief, Obama has portrayed himself as a reluctant warrior. Though he inherited two wars, he has managed to extricate 100,000 US combat troops from Iraq while promising a scale-back of US involvement in Afghanistan from July. But with democratic movements facing violent suppression, US political and security analysts were left to caution: watch this space.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-doctrine-of-intervention-flags-reduced-role-in-libya-20110329-1ceqy.html
The Sydney Morning Herald
Obama defends US Libya policy
March 27, 2011
President Barack Obama has staunchly defended the US role in the international military mission in Libya, as he came under pressure to explain US goals to a public exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama's weekly radio and online address was his most detailed review of the UN-sanctioned action so far, and comes ahead of an address to the nation on Monday on the US strategy in Libya.
"Make no mistake, because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided and the lives of countless civilians - innocent men, women and children - have been saved," he said.
When a leader like Libya's Muammar Gaddafi threatens a "bloodbath", and when nations are prepared to respond together, "it's in our national interest to act," he said. "And it's our responsibility."
"Every American can be proud of the lives we've saved in Libya," he said.
Conservative and liberal politicians have criticised Obama for joining what many say is an open-ended, ill-conceived operation to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.
Obama however emphasised that the US mission "is clear and focused".
"We're succeeding in our mission. We've taken out Libya's air defences. Gaddafi's forces are no longer advancing across Libya," he said.
The UN Security Council mandated the no-fly zone, and an international coalition that includes Arab countries was protecting Libyans to prevent "further atrocities," Obama said.
A key part of the administration information blitz on Libya includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who are to appear on Sunday on influential TV political talk shows.
Critics say that Obama has failed to define the Libya mission, and failed to first consult the US Congress, which has the sole authority to declare war.
Newt Gingrich, a possible Republican 2012 presidential hopeful, said he was "utterly confused" about the operation's goals.
"It's not a humanitarian mission. It's a mission to defeat Gaddafi," said Gingrich Saturday. "I've never heard of a no-fly zone that includes everything," he added, a reference to air strikes on Gaddafi's tanks.
The UN mandate on Libya is limited to protecting civilians, and does not cover overthrowing Gaddafi.
Gingrich however, was panned for first criticising Obama for not being more forceful in imposing a no-fly zone, even without UN approval.
As long as the United States is in the conflict "we better be in it to win it", former Alaska governor Sarah Palin said earlier on Fox News. "And if there's doubt, we get out."
Another possible Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, described Obama's lack of clarity on the Libya mission as "dithering".
In Congress, legislators like Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Dennis Kucinich have called for a debate and vote on military action against Libya.
Obama briefed key congressional leaders - included Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, Majority leader Eric Cantor, and Nancy Pelosi, the chamber's Democratic leader - on Libya on Friday.
After the briefing, however, Boehner said Obama "left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered".
Clinton, Gates, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Admiral Mike Mullen, the top US uniformed military officer, are later scheduled to offer a classified briefing for members of Congress on Wednesday.
In his Saturday address Obama emphasised that the US goals were limited, that "responsibility for this operation" would be transferred to US allies and NATO partners, and that no US ground troops would be sent to Libya.
"The United States should not, and cannot, intervene every time there's a crisis somewhere in the world," Obama said.
The president also repeated his warnings that Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya with an iron fist since 1969, must go.
"Muammar Gaddafi has lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to rule, and the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realised," Obama said.
Washington and its allies are looking into arming the Libyan rebels, the Washington Post reported on Saturday. France strongly supports arming and training the rebels, the Post said.
The Obama administration believes the UN resolution authorising intervention in Libya has the "flexibility" to allow such assistance, the newspaper reports, citing unnamed US and European officials.
US public support for the conflict is lukewarm: a March 22 Gallup poll showed that 47 per cent of Americans surveyed approve of action against Libya.
The pollsters said this support "is lower than what Gallup has found when asking about approval of other US military campaigns in the past four decades".
Obama is scheduled to address the US public about the Libya strategy from the National Defence University in Washington at 7:30pm on Monday (10:30am on Tuesday AEDT).
AFP
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-defends-us-libya-policy-20110327-1cbiv.html
No comments:
Post a Comment