Obama's Speech on Libya Draws Yays and Nays

03/31/11

Essentially, supporters say the president has responded quickly to the unfolding crisis. However, critics say Obama has not relayed a clear military plan.

At the heart of the president’s speech is what’s becoming known as the ‘Obama doctrine’. The president stated that America will act alone to defend itself if necessary. However, in a case such as Libya, in which Gadhafi is threatening the people in his own country, but his actions are not directly endangering America, the United States would continue to lead the efforts to protect human rights, but would require assistance in the form of a coalition, to share in both the fighting and the expense, according to the March 29th stripes.com article, ''Obama speech outlines policy on justified military action - to mixed reviews''.

In his speech, Obama said, ''It’s in America’s interest to protect people around the world, but the hard lessons of recent wars show there are limits,'' according to the same stripes.com article. Lest anyone forget the lessons learned in Iraq, Obama was also quoted as saying: ''To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq,'' and that ''regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That’s not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.''

Criticizing Obama’s position, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said in a March 29th statement at his website: ''When our men and women in uniform are sent into harm’s way, Americans and troops deserve a clear mission from our commander-in-chief, not a speech nine days late. President Obama failed to explain why he unilaterally took our nation to war without bothering to make the case to the U.S. Congress. And now he's splitting the difference-telling us Gadhafi must go, but refusing to do what it takes to remove him.''

In the same stripes.com article, Damon Wilson, executive vice president of the Atlantic Council, a NATO-oriented Washington think tank, and a former NATO official was quoted as saying: ''When push came to shove, he [Obama] sided with values, and with those in the administration who cited the right to protect and the right to intervene to support human rights.''

Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of defense, was quoted as saying in the same article: ''The president took on the arguments of those who said the United States took too long to get involved by pointing out that compared to Bosnia - where it took a year to do anything to protect people - this was very quick.''

According to the March 29th cbsnews.com article, ''Obama's speech seeks to keep allies united on Libya'', U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon said, ''the United Nations - which imposed the no fly zone mandate and authorized the use of force - has seen no evidence of a ceasefire in Libya or of any steps by the country's authorities to fulfill their obligations under Security Council Resolutions aimed at protecting civilians.'' He was also quoted as saying: ''We have serious concerns about the protection of civilians and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.''

According to the same article, the secretary general is deeply concerned about the possibility of a humanitarian crisis in Libya, saying that up to a quarter of a million people could potentially be displaced by the fighting in Libya and he was worried ''about the protection of civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law and the access of civilian populations to basic commodities and services in areas currently under siege.''

Yay - Obama shares this position, stating in his speech that the mission was to avert a humanitarian disaster. Nay - will the ‘how’ of the mission be made clear in the days ahead?