Ambivalent Goals
Published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(Germany) on 30 March 2011
by Klaus Dieter-Frankenberger (link to original)
(Germany) on 30 March 2011
by Klaus Dieter-Frankenberger (link to original)
Translated from
by Elissa Yonkers.
Edited by Alex Brewer.
Obama shied further away from precisely stating the goals of the military deployment in Libya: Is it “only” about preventing crimes against the Libyan people, like the U.N. resolution provides for, or is it also about bringing down the Gadhafi Regime?
The Americans now know something more precisely: the military intervention against the dictator Gadhafi was right and important, in order to prevent a massacre of the Libyan people. They have from their president also learned that this intervention will be limited and Washington will (allegedly) play only a supporting role.
Admittedly, Obama’s speech leaves many questions open, above all the goals: Is it really “only” about preventing crimes against the Libyan people, like the U.N. resolution provides for, or is it also about bringing down the Regime in Tripoli?
Actually, the anti-Gadhafi coalition is acting as the air-force of the rebel, and makes their territorial gains possible. Obama hasn’t stopped this ambivalence, which couldn’t be avoided: No, there is no regime change a la Iraq; yes, there will be further downfall of dictators — with non-military means.
Obama laid out one goal with commendable clarity: the opposition in Arabia should not be drowned in Libyan blood and there should not be any Gadhafi imitators.
The Americans now know something more precisely: the military intervention against the dictator Gadhafi was right and important, in order to prevent a massacre of the Libyan people. They have from their president also learned that this intervention will be limited and Washington will (allegedly) play only a supporting role.
Admittedly, Obama’s speech leaves many questions open, above all the goals: Is it really “only” about preventing crimes against the Libyan people, like the U.N. resolution provides for, or is it also about bringing down the Regime in Tripoli?
Actually, the anti-Gadhafi coalition is acting as the air-force of the rebel, and makes their territorial gains possible. Obama hasn’t stopped this ambivalence, which couldn’t be avoided: No, there is no regime change a la Iraq; yes, there will be further downfall of dictators — with non-military means.
Obama laid out one goal with commendable clarity: the opposition in Arabia should not be drowned in Libyan blood and there should not be any Gadhafi imitators.