Obama Walks a Risky Tightrope on Libya

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 2, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

             President Barack Obama finds himself squeezed between the left and right on his Libya policy, opposed on the left because of more pressing domestic priorities and on the right because he did too little, too late to make a difference.  Both sides, of course, don’t get the president’s dilemma, supporting the U.S.’s most reliable allies, Britain and France, while, at the same time, implementing the intent of a March 17 U.N. resolution, giving NATO the authority to take “whatever means” to stop Kadafi’s expected bloodbath on Libyan rebels.  U.S.-led Cruise missile attacks joined by France and Britain’s bombing missions stopped Kadafi’s relentless march on the rebel’s eastern port city stronghold of Benghazi.  While there’s been some success in the last 10 days, allied efforts to rid Libya of Kadafi have stalled, giving his son Khamis the chance to retake rebel-held territories.

            Barack’s March 29 speech on Libya didn’t go far enough, laying out the appropriate rationale and mission.  When former President George W. Bush took the nation to war in Iraq March 20, 2003, he cited Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.  In the wake of Sept. 11, the operation made sense until the U.S. military couldn’t find the dreaded weapons.  Giving ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama needed to do more than justify his actions based on saving Libyan civilians, not the best national security argument.  While regime change goes beyond the U.N. mandate, the president could have said that Kadaffi is too dangerous to leave in power. Barack could have equated the imbalanced Libyan leader as too dangerous to his own people and certainly too dangerous for the U.S., it allies and the region, a more acceptable explanation.

            Today’s developments revolve around whether or not the U.S. should re-supply Libyan rebels, faced with annihilation unless they replenish troops and equipment.  Coalition air-strikes haven’t stopped Kadafi’s son Khamis from reclaiming territory lost before he mobilized his forces.  Barack has emphatically ruled out putting boots on the ground, limiting U.S. and allied options to end Kadafi’s rule.  Recent reports about covert CIA actions indicate that Barack’s public face doesn’t match his private plans, instructing covert military operations.  Kadafi has watched some of his top diplomats jump ship, signaling that his days are numbered.  “It is our nation’s right to live in freedom, and democracy and enjoy a good life,” said Ali Abdessalam, Libya’s former foreign minister and U.N. Assembly president.  Libya’s current Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa defected today to the U.K.

            Kadafi remains the only real hierarchy in Libya, where no matter who resigns the dictator can still cling to power.  As long as Khamis runs his battered military, Kadafi still has the hope of outlasting coalition forces.  U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, and, yes, Obama, himself, insist Kadafi must go.  Obama’s played his cards close to the vest regarding the official U.S. position regarding Kadafi’s ouster.  “We believe the regime is crumbling from within,” said rebel leader Mustafa Gherriani, hoping that Kadafi was seriously considering NATO proposals for his exile.  “An injured wolf is much more dangerous than a healthy wolf.  But we hope the defections continue and I think he’ll find himself with no one around him,” said Gherriani.  Gherriani knows that Kadafi will go only after rebel forces defeat his Khamis brigade marching toward Tripoli.

            U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. won’t arm Libyan rebels, insisting the U.S. will not put boots on the ground.  Gates does the current mission a disservice saying too much of what the U.S. will or won’t do.  Asked whether the U.S. might put “boots on the ground,” Gates remarked, “Not as long as I am in the job.”  Gates showed no such reluctance when he supported adding 70,000 more troops in Afghanistan during Barack’s first yea in office.  Telegraphing too much information to Kadafi only delays the inevitable of accepting an exile deal.  Gate’s current gaffes indicate that his retirement is long overdue.  He’s at odds with the ranking GOP member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), strongly backing regime change.  Barack should consider replacing Gates with McCain.

            Obama must get on the same page as Cameron and Sarkozy, settling for nothing short of getting Kadafi out.  He needs to sit down with Gates and either ask for his resignation or change the message before he hurts the current mission.  As long as the U.S. commits to the U.N. resolution, Obama must admit that there can be no compromise with Kadafi:  He represents a clear and present danger to his people, U.S. and NATO interests and the region.  Whatever we don’t know about Libyan rebels, the U.S. knows too well Kadafi’s criminal track record.  When a head of state orders heinous terrorist acts like Kadafi did with downing Pan Am Flight 103, there can be no compromise.  When Kadafi threw Flight 103 bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi a party when he got out of British jail in 2009, Kadafi begged to be taken down.  Barack must change his message to get the support he deserves.

About the Author

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.