National Post
U.S. applies hard lessons learned in Iraq to Libya
WASHINGTON — In his famous 2002 speech opposing an U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama said he wasn’t opposed to all wars, just “dumb” and “rash” ones.
Now, as the U.S. leads military action against Col. Muammar Gaddafi in concert with Canada and European allies, Mr. Obama seems determined not to repeat the mistakes his predecessor — George W. Bush — made the last time the United States waged a war of choice against an Arab despot.
The lessons of the Iraq invasion eight years ago have informed Mr. Obama’s thinking throughout the process that led to the campaign against Col. Gaddafi’s regime, even though the circumstances and scale of the military action in Libya are far different.
From the beginning of the debate over imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, Mr. Obama was cautious to the point of seeming reticent about American military participation.
Rather than spearhead a United Nations Security Council resolution, he let Great Britain and France force the issue.
Even after taking command and control of Operation Odyssey Dawn in its early stages, Pentagon officials and senior White House staff have stressed their intention to see U.S. forces pull back within “days” so America’s allies can take the lead in implementing the no-fly zone itself.
What has appeared to be U.S. reluctance, White House officials insist, was a deliberate effort to build consensus, stemming from the president’s resolve that America not move against Col. Gaddafi in isolation.
“The way that the U.S. took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy, and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition, are bearing the burden of following through on the mission,” Mr. Obama said Monday, making his most extensive remarks yet about the campaign against Col. Gaddafi.
“Because as you know, in the past, there have been times where the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”
In setting the parameters for U.S. military involvement, Mr. Obama has adhered to the war philosophy he outlined in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in December 2009.
At the time, Mr. Obama said America could justify use of force to “prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government” but that “in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone.”
Mr. Obama echoed that theme on Monday, saying “the entire international community” had recognized the imminent threat Col. Gaddafi posed to his own people.
The U.S. President and his top aides have also banished any talk that the military campaign is aimed at “regime change” — stressing instead that the United States and its allies are focused strictly on protecting civilians as authorized by the UN resolution.
Speaking Monday in Santiago, Chile, Mr. Obama said it is still his administration’s policy that “Gaddafi needs to go.” But, he added, Col. Gaddafi’s departure can be accomplished through a “wide range of tools” — such as sanctions — that are outside of the limited scope of the military mission.
Mr. Obama’s insistence on multilateralism extended to winning the Arab League’s endorsement before committing American forces to the campaign. Mr. Obama said he remained “absolutely” convinced Arab nations would help enforce the no-fly zone.
Mr. Obama’s approach to the Libya crisis, however deliberate, hasn’t shielded him from criticism.
On the right, Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate foreign relations committee, has complained the administration’s goals are poorly defined and lack an endgame.
Mr. Lugar, typically an Obama ally on foreign policy, said the United States and its allies risk becoming entangled in a “situation in which war lingers on, country after country” in the Middle East.
Representative Candice Miller, a Michigan Republican, said she found it “very troubling and unacceptable” that Mr. Obama approved military action without first getting authorization from Congress.
The President has committed U.S. forces to conflict “without clearly stating to the American people the compelling U.S. national interest” in doing so, Ms. Miller said.
Anger is mounting against Mr. Obama from the left, as well. Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich accused the President of “acting outside of the authority of the Constitution” by failing to obtain Congress’s approval.
“We have been sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now in terms of presidential authority in conducting these type of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress,” added Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat.
Mr. Obama has “a very clear obligation now to come forward to the American people and to the Congress and state clearly what they believe the end point of this should be,” Mr. Webb said.
Tom Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security advisor, said no formal congressional authorization was needed.
“This is a limited — in terms of scope, duration and task — operation, which does fall in the President’s authorities,” Mr. Donilon said.
A CNN/Opinion Research survey released Monday suggested public opinion is on Mr. Obama’s side.
The poll found 70% of Americans supported imposition of the no-fly zone, compared to 27%% who opposed American involvement. The poll showed a smaller majority — 54% — favoured direct attacks on Col. Gaddafi’s military.
“However much there may be some flak politically, I think this was done very well and in just the nick of time,” said John Entelis, a political scientist and professor in Middle East Studies at Fordham University.
“Going through the UN, getting an international coalition, they connected all the dots,” Prof. Entelis said. “Any military intervention, given the U.S. history in the Arab world, has the potential to be disaster. This was, for the most part, a politically savvy approach to the problem.”
Postmedia News
Obama on war:
In Oslo, Dec. 10, 2009, accepting Nobel Peace Prize:
— “More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace. America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.”
Speech against war in Iraq, Oct. 2, 2002 in Chicago:
— “I don’t oppose all wars.… What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/applies+hard+lessons+learned+Iraq+Libya/4479912/story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment