Obama Bets on Gadhafi
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 10 March 2011
by Jean-Sébastien Stehli (link to original)
(France) on 10 March 2011
by Jean-Sébastien Stehli (link to original)
Translated from
by Hodna Nuernberg.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
It almost makes you miss W. As Barack Obama drags his feet over aiding the opponents of Tripoli’s dictator, you might surprise yourself by feeling nostalgic for that seemingly long-ago time when George W. Bush invaded not just one, but two countries, just to reestablish a bit of order, or so he thought.
As for Barack Obama, he’s been thinking about it for 10 days. But that’s only because he has a good reason — an explanation.
Barack Obama and his administration’s slowness to move has one very simple reason: The 44th president is betting that Gadhafi will, finally, triumph.
James Clapper, the man who oversees the 16 intelligence agencies, said this Thursday before a congressional committee: "I think over the longer term that the regime will prevail."* Clapper, who served in the United States Air Force for 32 years, has bet on Gadhafi’s victory due to his superior armament.
Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have therefore adopted this view. If the head of the U.S. government is convinced that the defeat of the opposition is inevitable, the United States will not rush to intervene — or even to facilitate a resolution that would allow NATO forces to intervene. That the Americans have not even interfered with communication across the Libyan territory — something that would have been a nonviolent way to aid the rebel forces — is telling of the White House’s intentions. …
Before a congressional subcommittee, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of creating no-fly zones. The no-fly zone over Iraq did not prevent Saddam Hussein from liquidating certain dissidents, and the 64-day bombardment of Serbia came to nothing as long as the NATO forces did not take possession of the ground. This should show you to what extent the Obama administration is cautious — especially since the Americans are more concerned about budget cuts than by the events in Tripoli or Benghazi. And America is tired of wars that never seem to end.
Gadhafi’s opponents had better arm themselves with patience and plenty of courage.
* Quotation confirmed at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-us-libya-20110311,0,3360662.story ; “U.S. officials are at odds over Libya outcome” by Ken Dilanian and Peter Nicholas for the Los Angeles Times.
As for Barack Obama, he’s been thinking about it for 10 days. But that’s only because he has a good reason — an explanation.
Barack Obama and his administration’s slowness to move has one very simple reason: The 44th president is betting that Gadhafi will, finally, triumph.
James Clapper, the man who oversees the 16 intelligence agencies, said this Thursday before a congressional committee: "I think over the longer term that the regime will prevail."* Clapper, who served in the United States Air Force for 32 years, has bet on Gadhafi’s victory due to his superior armament.
Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, have therefore adopted this view. If the head of the U.S. government is convinced that the defeat of the opposition is inevitable, the United States will not rush to intervene — or even to facilitate a resolution that would allow NATO forces to intervene. That the Americans have not even interfered with communication across the Libyan territory — something that would have been a nonviolent way to aid the rebel forces — is telling of the White House’s intentions. …
Before a congressional subcommittee, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of creating no-fly zones. The no-fly zone over Iraq did not prevent Saddam Hussein from liquidating certain dissidents, and the 64-day bombardment of Serbia came to nothing as long as the NATO forces did not take possession of the ground. This should show you to what extent the Obama administration is cautious — especially since the Americans are more concerned about budget cuts than by the events in Tripoli or Benghazi. And America is tired of wars that never seem to end.
Gadhafi’s opponents had better arm themselves with patience and plenty of courage.
* Quotation confirmed at http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-us-libya-20110311,0,3360662.story ; “U.S. officials are at odds over Libya outcome” by Ken Dilanian and Peter Nicholas for the Los Angeles Times.