The Corner

What Is Obama’s Goal in Libya?

After weeks of public agonizing and handwringing, and countless civilian casualties, President Obama has finally committed the United States to military action against Libyan forces loyal to Moammar Qaddafi. As the United States along with France and the United Kingdom launched strikes against Libyan targets on Saturday, the goals of Operation “Odyssey Dawn” were not entirely clear.

Obama-administration officials, including the president, have said repeatedly in recent weeks that Qaddafi had lost legitimacy and that he must leave. But the publicly stated goal of this United Nations–sanctioned operation is focused on protecting Libyan civilians, not on ousting Qaddafi.

The administration appears desperate to show that the United States is playing only a supporting role. In his remarks on Friday about Libya, the president spent more time discussing what the U.S. would not do than outlining what the U.S. contribution to the war effort would be.

Indeed, despite the prominent role played by U.S. naval assets in the initial bombardment of Libyan air-defense sites on Saturday, administration officials were quoted saying that the primary U.S. role would last only for days, implying that once the groundwork was laid for coalition air superiority, implementation would be turned over to the allies.

This may be smart politically for a president already enmeshed in more wars than his Democratic base is comfortable with, but it just adds to ongoing questions about the president’s capacity to lead.

Some in Washington — who are focused on the price tag of another military operation or the supposed over-extension of the U.S. military — may want to extricate ourselves from Libya as soon as possible, but as long as Qaddafi remains in power, the Libyan people will not be safe and U.S. interests in the region will not be secure.

Luckily, in recent weeks, other international leaders, primarily French president Nicolas Sarkozy and U.K. prime minister David Cameron, have shown the brass that President Obama lacks. Perhaps Qaddafi’s end will come because of their persistence and tenacity, if not Obama’s.

This would be a good outcome for the Libyan people and for the world, but will not address the long-term implications of a leader of the free world who increasingly appears reluctant or unwilling to lead.

— Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Most Popular


On Trade, No One Is Waiting for Washington

President Donald Trump’s flips and flops on trade are now as ubiquitous as his 5:00 a.m. tweets. Many predicted that trade-expansion efforts would come to a standstill and world commerce would suffer amidst all the uncertainty. Instead, the precise opposite has happened. In the last few months, it’s become ... Read More
National Security & Defense

Trump’s Syria Quandary

President Trump raised eyebrows recently when he ended a tweet lauding the airstrikes he’d ordered against chemical-weapons facilities in Syria with the words “mission accomplished.” The phrase, of course, became infamous in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, when President Bush used it in a speech ... Read More

Confirm Pompeo

What on earth are the Democrats doing? President Trump has nominated CIA director Mike Pompeo, eminently qualified by any reasonable standard, to be America’s 70th secretary of state. And yet the Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, have perverted the advice and consent clause of the Constitution into a ... Read More
PC Culture

The Dark Side of the Starbucks Stand-Down

By now the story is all over America. Earlier this month, two black men entered a Starbucks store in Philadelphia. They were apparently waiting for a friend before ordering — the kind of thing people do every day — and one of the men asked to use the restroom. A Starbucks employee refused, saying the restroom ... Read More