●Into Libya: The birth of an Obama doctrine(2)_自考专本|专升本|高升专|高升本|在职研究生-学历教育网

Until Mr Obama gives his larger speech on the significance of the Arab awakening, much of the White House’s focus will continue to be on developments on the ground in Libya. The next tactical steps are supposedly to be decided by the wider alliance talks taking place this week in London. But senior White House officials say that they will continue to push for military action against the colonel’s military forces whenever they can be construed to be posing a threat to the civilian population. The United States is already in direct contact with the opposition forces, who will also be represented in London. Though not yet ready to recognise them as the Libyans’ legitimate government (as the French already have), it is edging in this direction. Crucially, the administration does not think that Resolution 1973 prevents outsiders from arming the opposition. Mr Obama described the next steps like this:

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do – and will do – is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they’re in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

It is a good case—and it was a good speech. If Colonel Qaddafi is swept quickly from power, or reduced to impotence in some bunker, nobody will care very much about the manner in which Mr Obama put together his alliance and campaign. It might indeed be remembered as an extraordinary foreign-policy success. After the rescue of Kuwait in 1991, however, the first President George Bush also expected Saddam Hussein's regime to collapse in short order. Mr Obama's team says the circumstances this time are entirely different. They had better be right.

More related topics:

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.
Don't have an account? Register

Sort:

wrote:

Mar 29th 2011 12:38 GMT

Finally the stuffed shirts in the western media have a cool-sounding handle for Obama's brainless foreign policy: Obama Doctrine. Give me a break.

Here's the Obama Doctrine. Wait for Sarko and Cameron to lobby for a risk-free turkey shoot against the only Arab leader to have peacefully renounced nuclear weapons. Fall in behind them, mumble platitudes about the will of the Libyan people, then claim leadership of the affair.

The best part of the speech is where he says this will be an example to other tyrants. I guess he means those in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and all the other violent basket cases in central Africa where the US has done, and will continue to do, doodly squat.

Recommend (224)

wrote:

Mar 29th 2011 12:45 GMT

"And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

Yeah, we've seen that movie, haven't we? It was called Bosnia. And we got people shredding us - deservedly - for callous inaction.

【免费咨询报名电话：010-6801 7975】

咨询报名MSN:xueliedu@hotmail.com
试一试网上报名
咨询报名QQ：