» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
Post Politics
New home.
Still the best political coverage.
Page 2 of 2   <      

On Libya, Obama willing to let allies take the lead

Moammar Gaddafi forces launched more air strikes on oil facilities in an attempt to take back crucial rebel-held territories. (March 10)

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity

Bill Clinton was criticized for standing by during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and waiting for years to use force in the Balkans. He finally did so in Kosovo without a U.N. Security Council resolution, a case that is being examined by European countries and the Obama administration as they decide how to proceed in Libya.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

George W. Bush took that unilateral approach even further following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Bush administration failed to secure a Security Council resolution before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and generally found international institutions more confining than useful in addressing America's post-Sept. 11 problems.

Obama, by contrast, is closely consulting his European counterparts and at times following their lead. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the first leader of a major country to call for Gaddafi's ouster. Obama did so the next day in a phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and spoke his position publicly five days later, clearly aligning the United States with Libya's opposition.

"Having called on Gaddafi to leave, I think it would be hard for the administration to back away from the crisis if that goal remains unmet," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, who said doing so would risk sending a message to other autocrats that they can use violence to maintain power.

How Obama intends to use American power to achieve that goal has yet to be determined.

Britain and France are drafting the no-fly zone resolution for possible consideration by the Security Council. But it remains unclear where Obama stands on the issue, which has only mixed support on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman whose public statements often reflect administration policy,called Sunday for a no-fly zone, but White House Chief of Staff William Daley criticized advocates of the idea for referring to a no-fly zone as if it were a "video game." Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has also stressed the difficulties in carrying out such an operation.

"That seems to me to indicate an administration that has not yet made up its mind on what to do in Libya," said Elliott Abrams, who was a National Security Council director under Bush. He called Daley's comments "derisive."

Obama inherited a pair of wars in Muslim countries, and his advisers argue that direct U.S. involvement in a third would do more harm than good to Libya's popular uprising.

Abrams, who participated in the White House working group on Egypt assembled last year, said he "understands the point."

"But I think they overdo it," he said. "I think they are being too timid here. And they are running the risk that there will be a bloodbath tomorrow and, by then, it will be too late for them to help the opposition."

Senior administration officials say that regardless of whether the U.S. role is characterized as leading or following, it has been part of a swift international response to the Libyan crisis.

The Security Council has imposed sanctions on Gaddafi's regime and referred Libya's case to the International Criminal Court. The Arab League and African Union, traditionally hesitant to rebuke a member, have done so in the case of Libya.

"Remaining in the background and letting the Europeans take the lead can help build consensus with such countries as Russia and China," Cordesman said, referring to two veto-wielding Security Council members often suspicious of U.S. motives."If we'd presented a sudden initiative, you might have seen it be far more difficult for others to act in support of it."

Given the United States' troubled history with Libya's erratic leader, a senior administration official said, the White House decided early that "what would be more persuasive to Gaddafi is not just the United States saying something, but having the United States, the European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, the United Nations all saying the same things that essentially left him nowhere to turn for legitimacy or support."

"That's been done, essentially," the official said, adding, "It's not as if we're not on the side of change."

<       2

» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments
» This Story:Read +|Watch +| Comments

More in the Politics Section

Campaign Finance -- Presidential Race

2008 Fundraising

See who is giving to the '08 presidential candidates.

Latest Politics Blog Updates

© 2011 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile