The Obama Doctrine: Redefining A Call To Arms

It's time to Break It Down!

For weeks now the crisis in Libya has hovered near the top of America’s headline news.  The conflict, a civil war by most assessments, frequently leads regular news casts, and is featured consistently in crawls on 24-Hour news stations such as CNN.

For the past 10 days, since the initiation of the no-fly zone,” the great hue and cry has been for President Obama to explain himself, and to define and defend his actions and America’s role.  Republicans, have demanded an accounting, several Democrats have expressed concerns, and much of the media has served as an enormous echo chamber, repeating the talking points of the various bases for dissatisfaction.

At the crux of this growing debate the central issue for many seems to be, “Why are we not taking unilateral control of the situation, by whatever means necessary?”

In short, our nation has a history of policing the globe.  Many of our current political leaders are clearly invested in the notion of “Act now; ask questions later…if at all.”  As a result, many of the nations of the world expect us, and to be honest, when their vital interests are on the line, want us, to continue to do so.  At the same time, many of our leaders, accustomed as they are to this role, can fathom no other way.

Therefore, when this President insists on gathering information, coalescing allies, and structuring a role for the United States commensurate with our less than vital interests, he and his efforts are met with utter disparagement and outright disdain.              

With that preamble serving as a backdrop, President Obama took the stage and spoke to the nation on Monday evening.  From the National Defense University in Washington, DC, the President talked Libya.  In outlining what he would achieve through his comments, he committed to explain:

• What he said we would do
• What we have done
• What we will do now
• Why this matters (or should, to Americans)

President Obama framed in the clearest way possible, what was a stake; the ruthless slaughter of Libyan citizens by 40-year dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, intent on remaining in power.  Given this impending annihilation, the President articulated our moral obligation this way:

"To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52107.html#ixzz1I3CljS9a

With so much at stake, the President and his Administration began to put in place the key elements that have come to define America’s approach to this conflict.  While his approach has certainly been controversial, it has also been thoughtfully conceived, and methodically executed.  It entails a number of measures, including:

• Evacuated the American embassy
• Facilitated the exit of all Americans who sought American assistance.
• Froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime’s assets.
• Joined with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened sanctions
• Imposed an arms embargo
• Created a framework for Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes
• Made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and said that he needed to step down from power.
• Ordered warships into the Mediterranean
• Led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic resolution to authorize a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air
• Authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people, including military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N Resolution 1973

What have these actions led to?  In effect, the pivotal moment starts now.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (familiarly NATO) takes command of enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone today.  This means our allies and partners are scheduled to assume the lead responsibility for maintaining pressure on Gaddafi’s remaining forces.

If this transition comes to pass, the US will engage in maintaining a supporting role.  In this capacity, the US would provide:

• Intelligence
• Logistical support
• Search & rescue assistance
• Capabilities to jam communications
• Provide assistance to Libyans who need food and medical care
• Safeguard the $33 billion in frozen assets so that it is available to the Libyan people.

Significant by-products of this reduced involvement is tamps down the risks to American soldiers, and the costs to our taxpayers.  This fact reflects the President’s effort to craft an effective, but balanced strategy to deal with the conflict in Libya.

Since America’s vital interests are not at stake in Libya, why is American involvement critical to Operation Odyssey Dawn?  The President detailed several reasons that compelled America to act.  They include:

• America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him.
• A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.
• The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power.
• The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security.
• While I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

The overarching debate questioning the President’s approach to resolving this war has unfolded on two antithetical tracks; one arguing against intervention in Libya; the other, proposing that we broaden our military mission to include deposing Gaddafi.  Mr. Obama defended his tack, and noted that his assignment of US forces carries both a United Nations (U.N.) mandate as well as international support.  In addition, the Libyan opposition requested our involvement on the current scale.  If we were to attempt to overthrow Gaddafi by force:

• Our coalition would splinter
• We would likely have to put troops on the ground
• We would increase the risk of killing many civilians from the air
• The dangers faced by our troops would be far greater
• Our share of the costs would spiral

The President reminded Americans that the scenario of moving to oust a despot is a precise replica of our Iraq experience; an outcome we cannot afford to repeat in Libya.

In placing the matter in perspective the President reminded that in just one month, the United States has:

• Worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition
• Secured an international mandate to protect civilians
• Stopped an advancing army
• Prevented a massacre
• Established a no-fly zone with our allies and partners.

By comparison, this rapid military and diplomatic response was compared to the Bosnian brutality of the 1990’s, when it took the international community more than a year to intervene.  The US took the above steps in 31 days.  This contrast sheds a most informative light on the bogus handwringing and second-guessing about how long it took the Obama Administration to act.

In further clarifying the Administration's actions, the President underscored that the US accomplished these objectives consistent with his initial pledge to the American people at the outset of military operations, that:

• America’s role would be limited
• We would not put ground troops into Libya
• We would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation
• We would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners.

In response to claims and suggestions that Mr. Obama has shown a lack of resolve in dealing with this matter, he demonstrated again his unwillingness to be bullied into moving hastily and irrationally to make war.  At the same time, as Commander-in-Chief of the most advanced military power the world has ever known, the President stated, in unequivocal terms, his position on deploying our armed forces:     

“I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests.”

The whole idea of an Obama Doctrine is a media contrivance; often as not a synonym for lazy journalism.  The world is far too complex for any one statement of even any single group of statements to define the views of the POTUS.  But for the purpose of this post, and from a military slant, Monday night’s speech serves as an exemplar of "The Obama Doctrine: Redefining A Call To Arms!”  One can conclude that while Mr. Obama is a President who views force as a last resort, he will use it, but only after deep reflection and only under circumstances that he feels give him no other choice.  He distanced himself from both Bill Clinton’s Bosnia and George W. Bush’s Iraq; he charted his own course.  Ultimately, that is a good thing.  Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52107.html#ixzz1I3G8VPq7

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_University

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdHSlFt14xU

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-obama-doctrine/2011/03/29/AFbqHqtB_blog.html

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110328/obama-libya-110328/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4612624/obama-addresses-nation-on-libya/

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8039979

http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/President_Obama_Addresses_Nation_on_Libya_118816814.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/obama-libya-speech-_n_841311.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/03/did-barack-obama-channel-george-w-bush-in-his-libya-speech.html