Obama facing mounting criticism over Libya
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
March 24, 2011 -- Updated 1419 GMT (2219 HKT)
President Obama steps off Marine One at the White House on Wednesday after a
five-day trip to Latin America.
President Obama steps off Marine One at the White House on Wednesday after a
five-day trip to Latin America.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Critics of Obama's Libya policy say he has been unclear on U.S. objectives
Administration defenders say Obama needed to assemble an international
coalition
Speaker Boehner sends a letter to Obama questioning U.S. policy in Libya
California GOP Rep. Tom McClintock calls military action in Libya
unconstitutional
Washington (CNN) -- Top Obama administration officials are expected to face
continued criticism Thursday over their handling of the crisis in Libya, and
louder calls for a clearer explanation of U.S. policy in the war-torn North
African nation.
The president, who returned home from a five-day trip to Latin America on
Wednesday, has insisted that the goal of the U.N.-sanctioned military mission
is strictly to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Specifically, the mission is
meant to prevent a slaughter of Libyan rebels and other civilians by forces
loyal to strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
Obama, however, has also said the administration's ultimate objective is
Gadhafi's removal from power. U.S. officials have indicated they hope the
dictator will be removed quickly by forces currently loyal to him, though they
haven't publicly called for a coup.
"Gadhafi has a decision to make and the people around him each have decisions
to make," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday. "We would
certainly encourage that they make the right decision."
Critics on Capitol Hill and elsewhere are angry over what they consider
inadequate administration consultation with Congress before the start of the
military mission, which began over the weekend. They also continue to have
questions over the conflict's cost and consequences, as well as the U.S.
endgame.
Boehner questions Libya action
Military leaders talk U.S. role in Libya
Santorum: Mission confusion in Libya
Congressional criticism on Libya
RELATED TOPICS
Barack Obama
Government and Politics
Libya
Moammar Gadhafi
Obama himself conceded in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that Gadhafi could
"hunker down and wait it out even in the face of (the U.N.) no-fly zone, even
though his forces have been degraded."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Obama Wednesday
complaining that "military resources were committed to war without clearly
defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission
in Libya is and what America's role is in achieving that mission."
"In fact," Boehner said, "the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to
the American people by members of your administration has left some fundamental
questions about our engagement unanswered."
Among other things, Boehner asked whether it is acceptable for Gadhafi to
remain in power once the military campaign ends.
"If not, how will he be removed from power?" Boehner asked. "Why would the U.S.
commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent
with our stated policy goals and national interests?"
Boehner also posed other questions for the president. Since the "stated U.S.
policy goal is removing" Gadhafi from power, "do you have an engagement
strategy for the opposition forces? If the strife in Libya becomes a protracted
conflict, what are your administration's objectives for engaging with
opposition forces, and what standards must a new regime meet to be recognized
by our government?" his letter said.
Another key House Republican called Wednesday for a withdrawal of U.S. forces,
arguing that Obama had failed to rally public support for military action.
"Mr. President, you have failed to state a clear and convincing explanation of
the vital national interest at stake which demands our intervention in Libya,"
said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Michigan. "You have failed to state a clearly
defined mission for our military to defend that interest. ... I believe you
must pull our forces from the coalition immediately."
Rep. Tom McClintock, R-California, sent his own letter to Obama on Wednesday,
contending the president violated the 1973 War Powers Act and other
constitutional restrictions against authorizing military action.
"With all due respect, I can only conclude that your order to United States
Armed Forces to attack the nation of Libya on March 19, 2011 is in direct
violation of the War Powers Resolution and constitutes a usurpation of
constitutional powers clearly and solely vested in the United States Congress
and is accordingly unlawful and unconstitutional," McClintock's letter said.
Liberal Democrats in Congress have also expressed unease with the Libyan
intervention, particularly in regard to the relative lack of congressional
consultation and the prospects for an open-ended conflict.
Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Reps. Barbara Lee, Mike Honda and Lynn
Woolsey of California released a statement late Tuesday arguing that "the
United States must immediately shift to end the bombing in Libya."
"We will fight in Congress to ensure the United States does not become
embroiled in yet another destabilizing military quagmire in Libya with no clear
exit plan or diplomatic strategy for peace," they said.
Top Senate Democrats, however, continue to defend the administration, insisting
that Obama moved methodically and carefully to assemble a strong international
coalition capable of saving innocent lives and reinforcing the broader Middle
East reform movement.
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, told reporters Wednesday that Obama's pursuit
of international approval was reminiscent of former President George H.W. Bush
lining up global support before taking military action to drive Iraq from
Kuwait in the early 1990s.
Obama has pursued a "very prudent course of action," Durbin said. The United
States is supporting "unprecedented and long overdue change" that is consistent
"with our national values."
Durbin noted that, if the conflict drags on, members of Congress could push for
a vote of approval under the War Powers Act.
The United States is "coming to the support and to the aid of a democratic
movement in general, and trying to protect a population inside Libya to the
extent that it is possible," said Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
If the president hadn't taken the time to assemble a broad coalition in Libya,
there would have been "huge opposition ... in the streets of the Arab world,"
Levin said. Protests currently aimed at Arab dictators "would have been turned
against us."
Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, stressed the administration's intention to hand
over leadership of the military effort to international allies as soon as
possible.
U.S. operations have generally been limited to America's "unique capabilities"
relating to the establishment of a no-fly zone, he said.
Some analysts, however, echoed complaints about what they insisted was unclear
administration guidance about ultimate U.S. goals in Libya and the methods
being used in pursuit of those objectives.
Obama has been "fairly muddy in what he's said," argued Max Boot, a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The president has been "reacting
frantically" to events and "being pulled hither and yon."
Boot predicted air power would not be sufficient to knock out the Gadhafi
regime, and warned of a "protracted and costly stalemate" if the United States
doesn't send in military advisers to help arm and train the rebels.
Obama may be hoping for a palace coup, Boot said, but "I wouldn't bet on it."
Boot also stressed the need for more planning for a post-Gadhafi Libya. There's
a "real danger of chaos" and protracted tribal warfare if Gadhafi falls, he
said. Al Qaeda may be able to exploit such a situation, he warned.
Boot blasted the White House for "not really preparing the American people for
the possibility that this could be a protracted and expensive conflict."
"The public and the administration should not be going into this with
rose-colored blinkers on," he said.
But Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told CNN that
Obama "has no interest in a full-scale war with Libya and every intention in
keeping our mission there limited in scope and duration."
Mann also argued that Obama "probably doesn't want a congressional vote of
approval because it would heighten the public attention and the stakes
involved."
Still, "while Congress has no stomach for assuming responsibility for approving
or reversing the steps taken by Obama, the president (would be) well advised to
step up his consultation with the first branch of government," he said.
Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political scientist, argued Obama might have
eventually paid a political price if he didn't intervene before Gadhafi's
troops took control of the last rebel stronghold in Benghazi.
"Americans generally do not like to see protesters seeking political rights
shot, wounded or killed," she said. "Standing by and watching that happen,
especially after the U.N. authorized a no-fly zone, would have made Obama look
weak and indifferent to their struggle.
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
