Obama's idea of 'intervention' in Libya

Rick Moran
So I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to intervene in Libya. Sets a bad precedent, plus, it might spark other revolutions against tyrants that would present the UN-US with a dilemma; why not intervene there too? What makes Libya special?

That said, if we're going to intervene, you might think America would probably take the lead given the sophistication of our weapons and our skill as a military force. But Obama - playing the angles - is apparently going to hang back and let others take the lead in enforcing the UN resolution.

Laura Rozen:

Obama told Congressional leaders that "he had not authorized troops on the ground or airplanes," a staffer to one of the Congress members briefed Friday said on condition of anonymity. "He stressed the U.S. is diplomatically supporting the no-fly zone, not the enforcement itself."The meeting came after a key GOP ally, ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee vice chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), objected to the administration deploying U.S. military personnel or assets for the Libya intervention without first coming to Congress to get a declaration of war. Lugar also wanted the administration to explain how the Libya mission would be paid for.

In his public remarks Friday, Obama said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to France tomorrow for meetings about Libya with European allies and Arab partners, to be hosted by France's Nicholas Sarkozy. The French president has shown eagerness to lead the international intervention together with British Prime Minister David Cameron, and a war-weary Washington seems inclined to let them.

Obama also stressed what the United States would not be doing in Libya, namely deploying ground troops in Libya. In fact, the UN Security Council resolution approved Thursday night explicitly excludes a foreign ground occupation force in Libya, while authorizing all other necessary means to protect civilians from attack.

Urging Gadhafi to observe a cease-fire, Obama said the coalition will be authorized to use force only in circumstances that meet "a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."

Pure speculation; the Europeans and Arabs will botch it and the US will be forced to take an active role if the rebellion is to be saved and civilians protected. Otherwise, the rebel army will fall apart and a bloodbath will ensue - as it is already underway in cities and towns that Gaddafi's forces have retaken from the rebels.

The Europeans have been clamoring for years that the US take a back seat and let them run the world. We're about to find out whether that was just left wing pablum or if they really meant it.





So I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to intervene in Libya. Sets a bad precedent, plus, it might spark other revolutions against tyrants that would present the UN-US with a dilemma; why not intervene there too? What makes Libya special?

That said, if we're going to intervene, you might think America would probably take the lead given the sophistication of our weapons and our skill as a military force. But Obama - playing the angles - is apparently going to hang back and let others take the lead in enforcing the UN resolution.

Laura Rozen:

Obama told Congressional leaders that "he had not authorized troops on the ground or airplanes," a staffer to one of the Congress members briefed Friday said on condition of anonymity. "He stressed the U.S. is diplomatically supporting the no-fly zone, not the enforcement itself."

The meeting came after a key GOP ally, ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee vice chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), objected to the administration deploying U.S. military personnel or assets for the Libya intervention without first coming to Congress to get a declaration of war. Lugar also wanted the administration to explain how the Libya mission would be paid for.

In his public remarks Friday, Obama said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to France tomorrow for meetings about Libya with European allies and Arab partners, to be hosted by France's Nicholas Sarkozy. The French president has shown eagerness to lead the international intervention together with British Prime Minister David Cameron, and a war-weary Washington seems inclined to let them.

Obama also stressed what the United States would not be doing in Libya, namely deploying ground troops in Libya. In fact, the UN Security Council resolution approved Thursday night explicitly excludes a foreign ground occupation force in Libya, while authorizing all other necessary means to protect civilians from attack.

Urging Gadhafi to observe a cease-fire, Obama said the coalition will be authorized to use force only in circumstances that meet "a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."

Pure speculation; the Europeans and Arabs will botch it and the US will be forced to take an active role if the rebellion is to be saved and civilians protected. Otherwise, the rebel army will fall apart and a bloodbath will ensue - as it is already underway in cities and towns that Gaddafi's forces have retaken from the rebels.

The Europeans have been clamoring for years that the US take a back seat and let them run the world. We're about to find out whether that was just left wing pablum or if they really meant it.