President Obama on Operations in Libya, 28 March 2011 (Updated)

Are we then required to intervene, again on humanitarian grounds (occupation; boots on the ground required to do this work), to deal with this potentially more severe/more catastrophic humanitarian crisis that we, in aiding the opposition, have created and, therefore, are responsible for?

My thought/concern:

What does the President, the United States, NATO and/or the "international community" do -- in Libya and elsewhere -- if the opposition prevails and begins to do attrocities/mass killings, etc. themselves, in the long and nasty civil wars that are likely to follow initial regime elimination???

Harvard Men At War

From up upon the podium in tailored suit and tie,
Between the flags of freedom crossed, and in the public eye,
The Harvard man made his address to critics, in reply,
And laid out for the audience his modern battle cry.

Recall that other Harvard man, who at the San Juan Hill,
Did call 'Rough Riders, follow me! and led the charge until
The foot soldiers and cavalry were summoned by his will,
And overcame the enemy with valor and with skill.

Not for our modern Crimson man do words like those resound,
For in their stark grave melody is heroism found.
Instead we hear of diplomats who finally come around,
And handing off the fighting with no boots upon the ground.

So rally round the UN flag: we fight for powder blue!
Leave well behind the stars and stripes, and patriotic hue.
Well fight for days or weeks for sure, and then well say adieu,
And hope our allies have resolve and heart to follow through.

Sir-

I was wondering if anyone has thought that if "the opposition" are successful (whatever that means)- how likely they will affect Tripoli, since they are not based from there. Could Libya have some kind of split or civil war if Qaddafi falls/leaves? Could this be the beginnings of a Somalia-like meltdown wherein the UN is pressured to send in "peacekeepers"? How high will oil go before we stop encouraging unrest in the region- or are we willing to go all the way? Very interesting thinking of the possible outcomes- especially since no-one saw Tunisia and Egypt coming.

For those who did not have the pleasure of attending tonight's speech!

Much to analyze and assess but a couple of quick comments this evening The first thing that struck me is that he never once used the phrase "vital interests". He used strategic interest and core interests:

"Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him."

"Ive made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests.

Maybe I am reading to much into this but I think there was a definite attempt to avoid getting caught up in the argument about whether operations in Libya support a vital US interest. My criticism is with his speech writers. If you google "core interests" 99% of the time it will come up with Chinese core interests. Core interest is how China defines Taiwan, the Spratlys, its own sovereignty, etc. I know his speech writers were trying to avoid using vital so they chose core but in the Chinese construct core interest is the equivalent of US vital interest. I think the President's speech writers erred here. I think the SECDEF probably tried to walk him back from vital interest which is right I think but the use of core is a mistake. I do think he did as good a job as anyone could of explaining why we needed to do this but there is no simple explanation and the speech writers went for a catch phrase and were unaware of the linkage to China. I will bet we will read some interesting commentary in the Chinese press.

Also, of particular note, unlike the media, the President never used the word "rebels." He called them the "Libyan opposition" 4 times and used the word opposition 7 times altogether though only 4 times meaning the people opposing Qaddafi.

This sentence also is interesting in that it describes our ways and hints at our immediate ends (though it acknowledges it could take time)

We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafis side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determinetheir own destiny, and that is how it should be.

I think that "assist the opposition" can be broadly interpreted. Certainly our air support assists the opposition but even though he specifically stated we will not put US troops on the ground, I interpret that to mean no regular forces on the ground. I think this implies activities to help a resistance or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow a government or occupying power (or perhaps a tyrannical regime!). Other than regular troops might be needed to do that.

My real question is what comes next? What happens when Qaddafi falls (dies or escapes into exile if that is possible)? How do we see things playing out and how do we support whatever outcome it is that we are after? And of course what happens if Qaddafi survives and we have a stalemate.

Search

President Obama on Operations in Libya, 28 March 2011 (Updated)

Comments