Tonight in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa Barack Obama will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.
Not that the word war" will pass his lips most likely. In press briefings last week our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a kinetic military action" and a time-limited scope-limited military action." (The online parodies were merciless: Make love not time-limited scope-limited military actions!" Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!") Advertising tonights address the White House opted for the situation in Libya" which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTVs Jersey Shore."
But by any name or euphemism the United States has gone to war and there are questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones:
What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution were enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations under threat of attack" from Qaddafis forces. But were interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive whose success is contingent on our continued air support.
If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli though how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces so they can finish the job? Either way the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.
Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya they have issued policy statements that include all the right elements" support for democracy economic development womens rights etc. According to The Los Angeles Times they have filled what used to be Qaddafis prisons with enemies of the revolution" mostly black Africans rounded up under suspicion of being mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph in London their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the patriots and good Muslims" who fought American forces in Iraq.
Perhaps Obama can clarify this picture. The rebels dont need to be saints to represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that were dropping bombs on their behalf it would be nice if they didnt turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.
Can we really hand off this mission? Officially this is a far more multilateral venture than was say the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policys Josh Rogin points out when it comes to direct military support this wars coalition is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War." Officially too the United States is already stepping back into a supporting role as NATO takes over the command. But as Wireds Spencer Ackerman argues the difference between a high" United States involvement and a low" military commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.
Obama has said our involvement will be measured in days not weeks." With one week down already is this really plausible? And anyway how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest as a senior administration official did last week that how it turns out is not on our shoulders"?
Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While weve been making war on Qaddafis tin-pot regime our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents Yemens government is teetering theres been an upsurge of violence in Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh and were still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.
Last week The Atlantics Jeffrey Goldberg rank-ordered Mideast trouble spots that demand more American attention than Libya." He came up with six: Afghanistan-Pakistan Iran Iraq Yemens Qaeda havens post-Mubarak Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
One can quibble with Goldbergs ordering but not his broader point. While we intervene in Libya what is our Egypt policy? Our Yemen policy? Our Syria policy? With the entire Middle East in turmoil does it make sense that Washington is focused so intently on who controls the highway between Ajdabiya and Surt?
Its clear that not everyone in this White House thinks so. Defending the intervention on Meet the Press" on Sunday Robert Gates let slip that he believes that Libya is not a vital interest" of the United States.
President Obamas most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong and why appearances to the contrary the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.
Tonight in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa Barack Obama will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.
Not that the word war" will pass his lips most likely. In press briefings last week our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a kinetic military action" and a time-limited scope-limited military action." (The online parodies were merciless: Make love not time-limited scope-limited military actions!" Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!") Advertising tonights address the White House opted for the situation in Libya" which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTVs Jersey Shore."
But by any name or euphemism the United States has gone to war and there are questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones:
What are our military objectives? The strict letter of the United Nations resolution were enforcing only authorizes the use of air power to protect civilian populations under threat of attack" from Qaddafis forces. But were interpreting that mandate as liberally as possible: our strikes have cleared the way for a rebel counteroffensive whose success is contingent on our continued air support.
If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli though how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces so they can finish the job? Either way the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.
Who exactly are the rebels? According to our ambassador to Libya they have issued policy statements that include all the right elements" support for democracy economic development womens rights etc. According to The Los Angeles Times they have filled what used to be Qaddafis prisons with enemies of the revolution" mostly black Africans rounded up under suspicion of being mercenaries and awaiting revolutionary justice. According to The Daily Telegraph in London their front-line forces include what one rebel commander calls the patriots and good Muslims" who fought American forces in Iraq.
Perhaps Obama can clarify this picture. The rebels dont need to be saints to represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that were dropping bombs on their behalf it would be nice if they didnt turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.
Can we really hand off this mission? Officially this is a far more multilateral venture than was say the invasion of Iraq. But as Foreign Policys Josh Rogin points out when it comes to direct military support this wars coalition is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War." Officially too the United States is already stepping back into a supporting role as NATO takes over the command. But as Wireds Spencer Ackerman argues the difference between a high" United States involvement and a low" military commitment may prove more semantic than meaningful.
Obama has said our involvement will be measured in days not weeks." With one week down already is this really plausible? And anyway how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest as a senior administration official did last week that how it turns out is not on our shoulders"?
Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While weve been making war on Qaddafis tin-pot regime our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents Yemens government is teetering theres been an upsurge of violence in Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh and were still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.
Last week The Atlantics Jeffrey Goldberg rank-ordered Mideast trouble spots that demand more American attention than Libya." He came up with six: Afghanistan-Pakistan Iran Iraq Yemens Qaeda havens post-Mubarak Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
One can quibble with Goldbergs ordering but not his broader point. While we intervene in Libya what is our Egypt policy? Our Yemen policy? Our Syria policy? With the entire Middle East in turmoil does it make sense that Washington is focused so intently on who controls the highway between Ajdabiya and Surt?
Its clear that not everyone in this White House thinks so. Defending the intervention on Meet the Press" on Sunday Robert Gates let slip that he believes that Libya is not a vital interest" of the United States.
President Obamas most pressing task tonight will be to explain why his secretary of defense is wrong and why appearances to the contrary the potential payoff from our Libyan war more than justifies the risks.
