Obama’s Messages and Calculations on Libya

The speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, as well as writers and analysts of different ideological backgrounds, have asked during the past three days what the real objective is that Barack Obama continues with his military intervention in Libya. Is he just trying to protect civilians or rather dispose of Gadhafi?

The confusion that reigns between North American public opinion is the fruit of the completely contradictory nature of the explanations that Obama has given to justify the attack. On the one hand, the president asserts that the United States will stick strictly to the mandate of the U.N. and that its action will be “limited,” pursuing only the protection of Libyan citizens.

However, thereupon, the occupant of the White House affirms that the final objective is the exit of Col. Gadhafi from power — an objective that will require a more overwhelming military intervention, with the dispatch of ground troops to the Arab country.

From my point of view, the explanation for this apparent political schizophrenia resides in that Obama’s messages, although well articulated in the same discourse, are intended for very different audiences.

When the resident of the White House insists that the action will be limited, the audience that it is directed at is the United States’ public, especially the most progressive and pacifist sectors. He needs to transmit to their bases that they will not slide down the same slope that led to the Iraq War in 2003.

Instead, when it is understood that Washington will not accept another crisis resolution that does not involve the disappearance of Gadhafi, it is directed toward Libyan society, especially those inside the government and military who have positioned themselves at Gadhafi’s side, or even doubt the winning horse.

The experience of previous conflicts assures us that the simple imposition of a no-fly zone will not bring the fall of the regime, especially when confronted with an unorganized and poorly armed enemy. So for Obama, Sarkozy and company, the only way to dispose of Gadhafi is through the desertion of part of the Libyan army that is considered a hindrance: that is to say, an implosion of the regime, probably through a coup.

While it seems pretty clear that this is the actual strategy, it is not so much the path that the Obama administration has followed to get here — above all, because it is a highly risky strategy. What happens if Gadhafi continues to maintain loyalty within the army ranks? Will there be a ground attack, or will they have to accept the humiliation of seeing Gadhafi surviving the Western stake?

Officially, Obama’s only motivation is humanitarian in nature. Very nice, but I don’t believe it. On too many occasions this has been the alibi that hides darker and more prosaic motivations. This being so, why then would Obama have waited so long to launch the operation? Don’t forget that Gadhafi began bombing rebellious strongholds more than a month ago.

My nose tells me that the action responds overall to political interests. After seeing how Sarkozy and Cameron cried aloud for an intervention, the Arab League unexpectedly rose and Gadhafi’s troops advanced full steam ahead to Benghazi, Obama feared that the entire world — especially his Republican adversary in 2012 — would annotate to his presidency the massacre of thousands of Libyan civilians.

So, at the last hour, he abandoned his skeptical position in regards to the no-fly zone and picked up all the diplomatic power of the U.S. to approve the U.N.’s resolution with urgency. The long-term strategic planning, necessary before launching a war, was substituted with a simple desire for the internal implosion of the regime based on bombings. And there we are. So it will take decisions on the fly.