Three Questions about Libya

1. What is the strategic goal? The key passage of United Nations resolution 1973, passed unanimously last night, authorizes

all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory

The resolution does not call for regime change. It also places its overwhelming emphasis on civilian casualties. If Ghaddafi backs off and consolidates the territory he still holds, with little harm to civilians, what role remains for the U.N.? And will Western nations like the U.S., Great Britain and France–as well as the Arab League–accept that outcome or up the ante? (Andrew Exum is fretting: “Someone please tell me how this ends.”)

2. What is the American military role? Early reports suggest that the U.S., still sensitive to the international perception that we’re a bully in the Muslim world, will play a supporting role. Joe applauds the possibility. But the more complicated things get, the more likely it is that America’s top-notch training, technology and resources will be applied. Or is there a red line of military commitment that Obama will not cross–risking the perception that the U.S. backed away from a fight?

3. What are the domestic politics? The 2012 presidential campaign is just getting underway, and the likely Republican candidates–who have generally been slippery on the Libya question thus far–will not be able to dodge this one. GOP foreign policy elites, whom the top candidates either know well or have an incentive to impress, have mostly supported a forceful intervention. (See Bill Kristol’s latest.) But polls are mixed, showing public support for a no-fly zone but not for actual military strikes, which now seem a real possibility (“all necessary means…”). This could also be a defining moment for Tea Party Republicans, who have alternately shown streaks of isolationism and hawkishness. Finally, what will we hear from Obama’s Democratic allies in  Congress–many of them exhausted by the foreign interventions of the past decade?

Stay tuned as we follow up on the answers to these questions, and the many others still taking shape today.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • koabd

    What is the American military role?
    .
    Hopefully none. The Arab League, France and the United Kingdom want this fight. Let them have it. History says that you don’t just establish a no-fly zone, you don’t just conduct air strikes. If you really want to establish peace in these flashpoints, peacekeeping troops need to stand between the warring factions. Remember Kosovo? I’m sure the National Guardsmen who rotated in and out of there for the latter half of the 1990s do. We’ve fought enough battles since 2001; let the suddenly righteously indignant rest of the world have this one.

  • afguy

    all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory
    .
    Wonder which country (or countries) this part of the resolution was aimed at?
    .
    Sounds like they are saying “we welcome help on implementing this to stop the violence against civilians… just don’t plan on using this to justify any extended stays for your own “goals”.
    .
    You don’t suppose OUR repeated use of the AUMF resolution to explain EVERYTHING we’ve done in Iraq had anything to do with the explicit nature of the language, do you?

blog comments powered by Disqus