Monthly Archives: February 2011

Yesterday, I lamented my concerns about the presidents lack of toughness with Gadhafi’s regime.  Apparently, I am not alone.  Slate columnist Christopher Hitchens shares my similar sentiments, although his writing style greatly surpasses mine.  He writes:

This has been especially evident in the case of Libya. For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarksthat condemned “violence” in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama. And his silence was hardly worth breaking. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had managed a few words of her own, he stressed only that the need was for a unanimous international opinion, as if in the absence of complete unity nothing could be done, or even attempted. This would hand an automatic veto to any of Qaddafi’s remaining allies. It also underscored the impression that the opinion of the United States was no more worth hearing than that of, say, Switzerland. Secretary Clinton was then dispatched to no other destination than Geneva, where she will meet with the U.N. Human Rights Council—an absurd body that is already hopelessly tainted with Qaddafi’s membership.
By the time of Obama’s empty speech, even the notoriously lenientArab League had suspended Libya’s participation, and several of Qaddafi’s senior diplomatic envoys had bravely defected. One of them, based in New York, had warned of the use of warplanes against civilians and called for a “no-fly zone.” Others have pointed out the planes that are bringing fresh mercenaries to Qaddafi’s side. In the Mediterranean, the United States maintains its Sixth Fleet, which could ground Qaddafi’s air force without breaking a sweat. But wait! We have not yet heard from the Swiss admiralty, without whose input it would surely be imprudent to proceed.
Evidently a little sensitive to the related charges of being a) taken yet again completely by surprise, b) apparently without a policy of its own, and c) morally neuter, the Obama administration contrived to come up with an argument that maximized every form of feebleness. Were we to have taken a more robust or discernible position, it was argued, our diplomatic staff in Libya might have been endangered. In other words, we decided to behave as if they were already hostages! The governments of much less powerful nations, many with large expatriate populations as well as embassies in Libya, had already condemned Qaddafi’s criminal behavior, and the European Union had considered sanctions, but the United States (which didn’t even charter a boat for the removal of staff until Tuesday) felt obliged to act as if it were the colonel’s unwilling prisoner. I can’t immediately think of any precedent for this pathetic “doctrine,” but I can easily see what a useful precedent it sets for any future rogue regime attempting to buy time. Leave us alone—don’t even raise your voice against us—or we cannot guarantee the security of your embassy. (It wouldn’t be too soon, even now, for the NATO alliance to make it plain to Qaddafi that if he even tried such a thing, he would lose his throne, and his ramshackle armed forces, and perhaps his worthless life, all in the course of one afternoon.)
Unless the administration seriously envisages a future that includes the continued private ownership of Libya and its people by Qaddafi and his terrible offspring, it’s a sheer matter of prudence and realpolitik, to say nothing of principle, to adopt a policy that makes the opposite assumption. Libya is—in point of population and geography—mainly a coastline. The United States, with or without allies, has unchallengeable power in the air and on the adjacent waters. It can produce great air lifts and sea lifts of humanitarian and medical aid, which will soon be needed anyway along the Egyptian and Tunisian borders, and which would purchase undreamed-of goodwill. It has the chance to make up for its pointless, discredited tardiness with respect to events in Cairo and Tunis. It also has a president who has shown at least the capacity to deliver great speeches on grand themes. Instead, and in the crucial and formative days in which revolutions are decided, we have had to endure the futile squawkings of a cuckoo clock.

I still find my criticism of the Obama administration’s Libya policy is warranted.  My criticisms were reconfirmed by todays news that the administration plans to introduce unilateral sanctions, meaning sanctions we put on Libya ourselves, against Gadhafi’s regime.  In a another related note, the U.N. Security Council met today deciding to condemn the Libyan government for the violence and decided to draw up a package that would include its own sanctions, an arms embargo, and the cases of violence will be reported to the International Criminal Court (ICCC) for review.  Additionally, the 47 member U.N. Human Rights Council decided to recommend that Libya be suspended from the its ranks and order an investigation.

Most of these actions were expected, but what was not expected was a statement by the interim Press Secretary Jay Carney who essentially said that all options, including military ones, were on the table.  I will not hedge my bets on a U.S. invasion of Libya anytime soon.

However, what was missing from the Obama administration and the international communities approach to the situation was asking Gadhafi to leave.  It is not like the elephant is not in the room.  With tight sanctions being imposed on Libya and suspension from the U.N. Human Rights Council, it is obvious Gadhafi has little support.  In order for any bite to be applied to all these actions President Obama must lead and tell Gadhafi to leave.  Otherwise, with sanctions and embargoes, the Obama administration’s tough stance against this current crisis is nothing more than a facade.  If the current administration was that concerned about Libya at the crisis level it appears to be in they would have asked the eccentric leader to abandon his post.

The policy might have teeth, but it is missing bite.  Don’t be fooled by fancy condemnations and impressive sounding sanctions.  It will take weeks before those votes happen and, until then, Gadhafi will remain in power, unless he decides to leave himself.  This is now just a stronger wait and see policy and everyone is afraid to step up to the plate.

Photo Credit: Daily Telegraph