Obama Speech on Libya: Close, but No Cigar

By Matt Kane

Last night President Obama addressed the nation about the "kinetic military action" in Libya. In his half hour speech he hit on a few points that should have been made more than a week ago in the lead-up to war in Libya. As I discussed in yesterday's podcast, Obama had his work cut out for him thanks to the horrendous and confusing interview that Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates gave over the weekend on Meet the Press.

One thing that I really liked about the speech was that President Obama came right out and said that the United States led the mission in Libya. I was quite frustrated on Sunday when Clinton said that the United States would be joining the international community, as if the U.S. had not been leading the charge in Libya from the word "go."

One phrase kept popping up in the speech that went directly against what Defense Secretary Gates said on Sunday. Obama said that our "values and interests" are at stake in Libya. That simply is not true. Like Gates said on Sunday, Libya is not in America's vital interest. And talk of values will remain empty as long as Guantanamo is open and Bradley Manning continues to be mistreated. It is akin to Newt Gingrich talking about the sanctity of marriage.

Along the same lines, the whole "stain the conscious of the world" rhetoric is just as empty. If every humanitarian crisis necessitated Western intervention a lá Libya, we would see allied forces on nearly every continent. At the very least we would see a large Western force in places like the Sudans, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Belarus, to name a few. It simply is not realistic.

In all fairness, Obama did bring up other countries going through changes that have been met with violence by the ruling regimes. His answer to this? Libya happened at a very specific time with very specific interests (which, for the record, were not listed) and it differs greatly from other places like Yemen or Syria. Without specifics about what makes Libya different, we would have to take Obama's word that American/allied interests in Libya made it more pressing than other civilian tragedies in other Middle Eastern countries. At this point in his presidency, however, only a fool would take Obama at his word.

Finally, Obama hinted that American and allied involvement in Libya will last much longer than anticipated. Even if Qaddafi steps down, Obama said, Libya will need help and support to transition to a truly democratic nation responsive to its people. This open-ended commitment to democracy in Libya should make anyone who has followed the Iraq War very nervous. Obama praised what we have done in Iraq in terms of bringing them democracy, but in reality we still have about 47,000 troops there. He explicitly stated that regime change is not the goal in Libya, but he wants Qaddafi out. Pick a goal and stick to it, Mr. President. You cannot have it both ways.

Obama made a promise similar to the one he made during this year's State of the Union. He said, "Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States." *Offer not applicable in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, China or any other country not meeting an unspecified rubric of the United States Department of Defense and Department of State. Unless those seeking freedom feel buoyed by Secretary Clinton's mumblings about restraint and peaceful dialogue while Libyan rebels get first-class Tomahawk missiles and air support, I do not know how valued American friendship will truly be.

Questions or comments? Leave them in the comment section or email The Second Age: admin(at)thesecondageblog.com.

French Foreign Minister: Libya Ops Could Take "Days or Weeks"

By Matt Kane

I was reading the New York Times this morning for updates on the situation in Libya and yet again I was taken aback by what officials are saying (or not saying, really) about the coalition's plans in the North African country. While yesterday it was Robert Gates who was dominating the "What did he just say?" game, today it is Alain Juppe, the French Foreign Minister. He is quoted in the Times as saying

"The destruction of Qaddafi’s military capacity is a matter of days or weeks, certainly not months."

Days or weeks? Is that how the allies are operating? I pointed out yesterday that they were taking their time to meet in London to discuss the future of Libyan action, and it now seems clear why. When you ask someone for a timeline and they say, "Days of weeks," what they really mean is, "I have no idea."

Obviously Minister Juppe did not want people to think that the allies did not really know what was going on in terms of Libya, so he added that the military operations would not take months. This seems to be in contrast to what top advisor to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Henri Guaino, said Monday. He was quoted saying that allied intervention in Libya would last "a while yet." Sounds more than "days or weeks" to me.

I don't think anyone can contest this statement anymore: The allies rushed into this military action against Libya with complete disregard to plans beyond the initial strikes. Juppe also told the Times that "You can’t expect us to achieve our objective in just five days." I don't think anyone did, except for the people calling the shots.

Photo - French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe (Wikipedia)

Gates: Libya? It's "Complicated"

Speaking from Russia days after that Eurasian giant's Prime Minister called the Libyan operations a "crusade," United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates deflected criticism of allied disorganization saying it was "complicated," adding

"We haven't done something like this, kind of on the fly before. So it's not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it sorted out."

I don't really want to dwell on this because I've spoken a lot about Libya, but the fact that Gates' retort to the questions of what Jack Cafferty calls the "falling apart" of the allied coalition is "We're not really prepared for this, and it's really hard" is disconcerting. It sounds like something I would say in middle school about my math homework.

I'm no military commander, but to bomb targets in a country embroiled in a civil war "on the fly" might not be the best military strategy. Despite Obama's two promises of the United States not taking a leadership role, Gates today also offered to keep the United States leading the Libyan operations for the next week or so. From the New York Times:

But the United States military also indicated on Wednesday that it could sustain its role for some time in the Libya operation without damaging commitments elsewhere, notably in Afghanistan.

The allies who are standing behind the United States in the operations seem to be in no rush to overtake operations from America. From the same New York Times article:

The French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said on Wednesday that representatives from the United States, Europe, Africa and the Arab nations would meet next week in London to discuss who would be in charge of military operations once the initial onslaught on Libya’s air defense systems and recalcitrant ground forces was complete, The Associated Press said.

Next week? I would like to know what is preventing these countries from meeting before next week. It's clear that there was no plan beyond "Drop some bombs." This is the slowest "on the fly" coalition I've ever seen.

Photo - Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Wikipedia)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Fails to Clarify Administration's Goals for Afghanistan

Throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I've stated that I just don't see a clear, quantifiable goal in either theater. President George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq over seven years ago, yet we're still there. Our efforts in Afghanistan have been met with increased difficulty, despite what the official rundown is. Well, we can supposedly rest easy now, because Defense Secretary Robert Gates broke down the current administration's goals on This Week.

When asked by Christiane Amanpour why Obama and Co. have not been out pushing the message that the Afghans enjoy our presence in their country (according to an ABC poll 68% of Afghans want us to remain in the country - how this poll was conducted I have no idea), Gates said:

And -- and I think -- you know, frankly, one of the things that I find frustrating is that I think that the president's strategy is really quite clear. I hear -- I hear all the stories that say what's the strategy, what's the goal here? I think it's quite clear. It's to -- it's to reverse the momentum of the Taliban, deny them control of populated areas, degrade their capabilities at the same time we're building up the Afghan security forces, so that the Afghan security forces can deny the Taliban and al Qaeda a base from which to attack the United States and the West.

These are great goals, I'm not going to deny that. But I have two problems with them. 1) How are we going to measure this? How will we know when these goals have been achieved? 2) With a timetable to begin troop drawdowns in July of next year, are these goals feasible in that kind of time frame?