Parsing the President

I've finally had some time to sit down and read the Presidents speech concerning the war in Libya in full and think properly about it.

If I may, I'd like to run through some parts of the speech that intrigued me as well as my thoughts about them.

Obama begins the meat of his speech with this:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt – two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant – Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world – including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Obviously, this is a somewhat romanticized view of the United States' role in the world. As every other country, we have certainly had interests that prevented us from serving as an "anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom" every time insecurity or oppression has occured. This isn't to say that it's wrong to anchor and/or advocate for security and/or freedom. I absolutely believe that this is consistent with what could be called "American Values". That said, it would also be astonishing and wonderful if there was ever a land that could or even would formulate the entirety of its foreign policy around those ideals. Reality quite unfortunately, often throws a monkey wrench into the loftiest of missions.

This brings us to the first hints of realpolitik in Obama's speech: Libya's inconvenient geography as well as Qaddafi's larger role as a destabilizing force in the Mid-East and the world in general.

Both of these are real challenges to American interests and problematic ones at that. I would assume neither Egypt nor Tunisia is in a position to accept any sort of sizable refugee migration. I also believe that the world would be a substantially better place were someone to bury something small, sharp and exceedingly poisonous in Qaddafi's back.

That said, given that the rebels seem incapable of advancing or holding territory without allied air support, I fail to see what hope exists for anything other than a Libya, partitioned between two hostile combatants and patrolled for the foreseeable future by NATO air forces. I'm unconvinced that this helps stabilize the region more than allowing Qaddafi's regime to continue. As fragile as Egypt and Tunisia are currently, how more more tenuous their situation when both sides in the conflict begin to import fighters across their borders?

Obama continues:

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role – including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation – to our military, and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly. 

This is good news from an American perspective. It would be ideal to hand this mess off to anyone else that wants it. Unfortunately, though this will significantly limit our risks and costs, will it limit our responsibility? Though I don't know that I would say that a country must clean up its messes, I think morally, it probably should. Having played such a vital role in the opening salvos of the war, are we in a position where we can simply step away from it? Though the United States will undoubtedly provide Libya with humanitarian aid (say what you will, one thing the US does is humanitarian aid), I think that there are serious challenges waiting for us.

Most significantly, Libya will be a security mess. Even assuming that the rebels manage to gain control of the country, who will protect the aid workers we send? Who will protect the engineers we dispatch to rebuild critical infrastructure damaged during the fighting? Will we ensure that we're able to provide safety for our people as well as the Libyans, via gunship? I think not. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Libya can be rebuilt without someones boots on the ground. Tossing rockets and cannon fire at tanks may very well prove to be much less difficult that protecting the peace in the aftermath.

On the limits accepted by the US by the UN mandate:

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. 

All very true. But what if he stays? I'm not advocating for regime change in any way. There are excellent reasons why that's off the table. Rather, I feel that since realistically, we cannot use force to remove the primary cause of this conflict, that perhaps it's a wasteful, ultimately pointless and perhaps even sysiphean use of  force in the first place.

He concludes:

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas – when the news is filled with conflict and change – it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star – the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Let us hope.