You might recall that I did quite a bit of initial blogging on Libya that was quite critical of Obama. I concluded that series of blogs with a list of “three big ifs” for success in Libya. The situation has been stuck on the final “if”, “if Qadhafi transfers power”. This post at The Atlantic raises all the right questions about Libya policy. After his successful work in guiding the effort against bin Laden, I feel like the president has earned my trust on Libya, but it is a tenuous trust, especially when I read things like this:
The United Nations's resolution establishing the no-fly zone over Libya was a defensive statement, he [NATO Secretary Rasmussen] said, authorizing the use of international force to stop the slaughter of a citizenry that was under attack by its own commander.
But publicly, world leaders, including President Barack Obama, have called for the end of Qaddafi's reign, though Western leaders say they won't move toward that end with a military escalation.
This has led many observers to worry that, with air power insufficient to remove Qaddafi and the Libyan leader apparently unwilling to go of his own accord, there's no endgame in sight.
But publicly, world leaders, including President Barack Obama, have called for the end of Qaddafi's reign, though Western leaders say they won't move toward that end with a military escalation.
This has led many observers to worry that, with air power insufficient to remove Qaddafi and the Libyan leader apparently unwilling to go of his own accord, there's no endgame in sight.
Yep! Tenuous trust at best if based on ability to formulate and execute an end game. But if we've learned anything from the recent past, in the current world with all its variables, a realistic, fool proof end game is hard to come by.
ReplyDelete