WASHINGTON — For President Obama, who told Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi last week that it was time to quit, the bloodshed and terror in Libya have posed a dilemma that sooner or later confronts every modern American president: whether, and how, to intervene with military force in a distant conflict.
REBELS A fighter is buried in Benghazi.
This time, the choice has been made even tougher by history, geography and the peculiar circumstances of Libya’s upheaval: a famously ruthless and unpredictable leader willing to do anything to cling to power, in a conflict that seems as much an African civil war as an Internet-fueled youth revolt of the kind that forced out Arab dictators in Egypt and Tunisia.
Mr. Obama’s blunt call last Thursday for Colonel Qaddafi to leave office, coupled with a threat to leave all military options on the table if he doesn’t, made it clear that the president believes the United States cannot stand by while Libyan jets bomb civilians. But his reluctance to talk about the most obvious measure — a no-flight zone over the country — reveals his qualms about thrusting the United States into a volatile situation in a region where foreign intervention is usually viewed as cynical neo-colonialism.
Tough as these issues are, the president is walking a well-trod path, one that has vexed predecessors who include Ronald Reagan (Lebanon) , George H. W. Bush (Iraq and Somalia), Bill Clinton (Bosnia and Kosovo) and George W. Bush (Darfur). Mr. Clinton wrote that his “failure to try to stop Rwanda’s tragedies became one of the greatest regrets of my presidency,” saying he was preoccupied at the time of the genocide by Bosnia, and seared by the memory of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia.
There is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t element to the calculation, said Gary Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton who has written about humanitarian interventions. “If you go in early, so that you save the maximum number of human lives, people accuse you of overreacting,” he said. “If you go in late, so no one really accuses you of overreacting, you will leave a lot of dead bodies.”
Complicating matters, Mr. Obama inherited two wars in Muslim lands, which would seem to offer an argument for not getting entangled in a third. Mr. Obama, in his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, took pains to say that America had no imperial designs on Iraq or Afghanistan — a pledge that would be sorely tested if American military forces entered another Arab country, even if for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that protesters in Egypt and Tunisia were able to drum out their leaders without the help of American F-16s is viewed inside the White House as a big victory. Making sure that young Arabs feel “ownership” of their political movements has been a central piece of the administration’s strategy, even if it has exposed Mr. Obama to criticism that he is not doing enough to stop violence when it occurs.
There are other, more practical, reasons for the administration to tread carefully. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said last week the United States could ill afford another intractable land war in the Middle East. Even a no-flight zone, he said, would be complex and risky, since American warplanes would first have to destroy Libya’s air defense systems.
His skepticism is reminiscent of Gen. Colin L. Powell’s in 1992, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Officials in the George H. W. Bush administration were contemplating a no-flight zone over Bosnia to help curb Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain was suggesting limited airstrikes. “As soon as they tell me it is limited, it means they do not care whether you achieve a result or not,” Mr. Powell said to The New York Times. “As soon as they tell me ‘surgical,’ I head for the bunker.”
REBELS A fighter is buried in Benghazi.
This time, the choice has been made even tougher by history, geography and the peculiar circumstances of Libya’s upheaval: a famously ruthless and unpredictable leader willing to do anything to cling to power, in a conflict that seems as much an African civil war as an Internet-fueled youth revolt of the kind that forced out Arab dictators in Egypt and Tunisia.
Mr. Obama’s blunt call last Thursday for Colonel Qaddafi to leave office, coupled with a threat to leave all military options on the table if he doesn’t, made it clear that the president believes the United States cannot stand by while Libyan jets bomb civilians. But his reluctance to talk about the most obvious measure — a no-flight zone over the country — reveals his qualms about thrusting the United States into a volatile situation in a region where foreign intervention is usually viewed as cynical neo-colonialism.
Tough as these issues are, the president is walking a well-trod path, one that has vexed predecessors who include Ronald Reagan (Lebanon) , George H. W. Bush (Iraq and Somalia), Bill Clinton (Bosnia and Kosovo) and George W. Bush (Darfur). Mr. Clinton wrote that his “failure to try to stop Rwanda’s tragedies became one of the greatest regrets of my presidency,” saying he was preoccupied at the time of the genocide by Bosnia, and seared by the memory of American soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia.
There is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t element to the calculation, said Gary Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton who has written about humanitarian interventions. “If you go in early, so that you save the maximum number of human lives, people accuse you of overreacting,” he said. “If you go in late, so no one really accuses you of overreacting, you will leave a lot of dead bodies.”
Complicating matters, Mr. Obama inherited two wars in Muslim lands, which would seem to offer an argument for not getting entangled in a third. Mr. Obama, in his 2009 speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, took pains to say that America had no imperial designs on Iraq or Afghanistan — a pledge that would be sorely tested if American military forces entered another Arab country, even if for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that protesters in Egypt and Tunisia were able to drum out their leaders without the help of American F-16s is viewed inside the White House as a big victory. Making sure that young Arabs feel “ownership” of their political movements has been a central piece of the administration’s strategy, even if it has exposed Mr. Obama to criticism that he is not doing enough to stop violence when it occurs.
There are other, more practical, reasons for the administration to tread carefully. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said last week the United States could ill afford another intractable land war in the Middle East. Even a no-flight zone, he said, would be complex and risky, since American warplanes would first have to destroy Libya’s air defense systems.
His skepticism is reminiscent of Gen. Colin L. Powell’s in 1992, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Officials in the George H. W. Bush administration were contemplating a no-flight zone over Bosnia to help curb Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain was suggesting limited airstrikes. “As soon as they tell me it is limited, it means they do not care whether you achieve a result or not,” Mr. Powell said to The New York Times. “As soon as they tell me ‘surgical,’ I head for the bunker.”
Source: iht.com
