Obama Defines the Limits of U.S. Military Action

Obama Defines the Limits of U.S. Military Action

“There will be times […] when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are,” said the president of the United States.

So this is the new “Obama doctrine” regarding military intervention. While the vague goals of the U.S. war in Libya were being criticized from all sides, the U.S. president set out his doctrine on Monday night from the National Defense University in Washington DC in a speech that even his ex-political opponent from 2008, John McCain, praised as “excellent.”

Countering at once those who believe that America must stop policing the world and concentrate on solving its own problems, and those who call for regime change by force, Obama defended the reasons behind the U.S. military involvement in Libya, the limited nature of the operation and the multilateral method used. “America should not be expected to police the world […] But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right,” he argued, revealing how much Democrats, like Republicans, remain committed to the idea of America having a moral role in the world.

“In this particular country – Libya – at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale […] To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” said Barack Obama, re-employing the theme of a “just” war, without ever pronouncing the term, which he had used to justify the growing importance of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

A “Supporting Role”

“I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action […] A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia,” said the president, explaining that “while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.” In comparison with the Bosnia intervention under Bill Clinton, which had taken a year of debating, he noted the speed at which the UN consensus was reached and a military coalition put in place. “It took us 31 days,” he said, refuting those who accuse him of indecision. “If it weren’t for the French and British, nothing would probably have happened,”* replied McCain ironically after the speech. *

Barack Obama made it clear he had been careful to avoid acting unilaterally, prioritizing the sharing of the burden and the transfer of the command of the operation to his NATO allies. From now on, America will occupy a “supporting role,” focusing on “logistical support” and “intelligence,” he said, emphasizing the fact that this approach would reduce both “risk and cost” to the United States.

Ignoring critics who accuse him of washing his hands of the matter, the president stressed the fact that refusing to be passive did not give him the right to lead America into an out-of-control spiral of military action, following Bush’s model in Iraq. “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake […] If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter,” he said, explaining that America would, however, use all political and financial leverage at its disposal, in addition to maintaining the no-fly zone, in order to precipitate his departure and help rebuild the country.

Solitary Action

More generally, Barack Obama drew a distinction between two scenarios that could trigger military intervention: when the safety of the United States is at stake, in which case he intends “to never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary.” And another case, where “our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are.” In such a circumstance, “we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone,” said the president, anxious to neutralize the Republican critics on his supposed allergy to American expansionism: “American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden,” he insisted.

After his performance, commentators judged that his fervent defense speech did not answer the question of what would happen if Gaddafi clung to power. If the tyrant is still there in six months, Obama and his approach to limited war “will experience hard times,” predicted CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, noting that U.S. troops would be involved in the operation through NATO, albeit in a less visible role.*

The question of a “precedent” being set by the Libyan intervention remains open and threatens to confront the U.S. president with serious dilemmas, if large-scale repressions were to take place in Syria or in Iran.

*Editor’s Note: The original quotes could not be verified.