Obama must explain Libya plans
On May 22, a family walks through war-torn Tripoli, a battleground in between loyalist and rebel troops. Credit: AP
The time has come for President Barack Obama to lay out his vision for future U.S. military involvement in Libya.
NATO's decision yesterday to extend its air war in support of Libyan rebels for another 90 days has bumped squarely up against this nation's War Powers Act, which allows presidents to commit the military to a fight, but requires congressional approval after 60 days. The operation in Libya hit that decision point May 21. If he wants the nation to continue down this road with our NATO allies, Obama should spell out limited, achievable objectives. With U.S. troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq, the last thing the nation needs is to drift into another protracted struggle.
The Libyan operation was launched with good intentions. The administration was reluctant to get involved, but jumped in after mercurial dictator Moammar Gadhafi threatened to slaughter hapless civilians. Preventing that was the stated objective of the multinational air campaign authorized by the United Nations and undertaken by NATO. The unspoken objective was to force Gadhafi from power.
Coming so soon after popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt toppled entrenched regimes, it seemed the protest roiling Libya might quickly end Gadhafi's rule. It didn't. After two months of violence, the rebels and Gadhafi have battled to a stalemate. Each controls a portion of the country, and Gadhafi has consistently rejected efforts to nudge him into relinquishing power in exchange for refuge in some other country.
A public discussion on Libya is timely, and Congress is gearing up for that debate.
A Senate resolution introduced by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) would authorize the president to continue the limited use of military force in Libya as part of the NATO mission.
But the House is leaning in the opposite direction. A defense-spending bill approved last week explicitly said nothing in the legislation should be construed to authorize military operations in Libya. And it prohibited the introduction of U.S. ground troops in Libya -- something Obama says he has no intention of doing anyway.
The House also appeared poised to consider a resolution sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) directing the president to withdraw from military operations in Libya. House leaders backed away from plans to have that debate in coming days when it appeared the resolution was gaining support. Now that NATO has said it will extend the mission, it would be irresponsible for the House to duck the issue.
Obama was right to join the multinational effort launched March 19 to protect Libyan civilians. The United States is at its best when it supports its ideals, and that includes backing pro-democracy movements. But the expected quick resolution didn't happen, so now we need answers. Who are the Libyan rebels and what is their vision for a post-Gadhafi Libya? Is that vision achievable? How much will the United States military be asked to do in pursuit of it and for how long?
If Congress allows an unexamined drift to war, it would be guilty of negligence bordering on malfeasance.
