Why Libya Is Not a Priority for Obama
Published in Panorama
(Italy) on 17 February 2015
by Michele Zurleni (link to original)
The possibility of a U.S. military intervention currently seems a long way off. For Washington, Iraq and Syria are the real strategic problems.
Libya does not appear anywhere near the top of Barack Obama's list of priorities. At least, this is how it seems from looking at White House declarations from recent days.
[There is] horror and condemnation for the Islamic State group’s beheading of Coptic Christians, but no sign of possible military action against Islamic militants in Sirte.
This does not mean that there is no concern about the possible expansion of the caliphate's followers, even on the Libyan coast, but the Obama administration seems to be taking a very cautious approach to providing any answers.
This is for many reasons: partly because of internal policies, and also because of reasons linked to Obama's strategy for fighting the Islamic State group.
Authorization for Use of Force
Obama has recently requested authorization from Congress to use force against the caliphate. The draft resolution contains precise limits for military action. This was done deliberately by Obama to bind his successor. The requested war authorization sent to Capitol Hill is for the next three years, which is 12 months after the end of his presidency.
Moreover, the White House's request also contains geographical limitations. The document refers only to Syria and Iraq. Obama does not want to extend further. He does not want to use American armed forces on other fronts. Intervention in Libya would therefore be excluded.
Some Republican members of Congress, however, would like the mandate to be extended. Terrorism has to be fought everywhere, they say. The White House, for the time being, does not see things this way. Obama and the Pentagon are concentrating their efforts on the war in the Middle East.
Efforts Concentrated on Syria and Above All on Iraq
Within a few days, the Iraqi army's offensive to recapture Mosul, the country's second largest city, is due to start. The U.S. Air Force Reserve will play an important role, as will the U.S. ground troops who will be supporting soldiers from Baghdad.
This will be the first time that the Marines come face to face with Islamic State militants. It is a delicate step for President Obama. America will be on the frontline. And this is why they prefer to stay on the sidelines on the Libyan front.
Another Country at the Helm of Possible Intervention
Obama is known to favor the diplomatic route. For Libya, the possibility of building a ground alliance against the various Islamic State group divisions will be examined. If this is not possible, they will use the same strategy that was used in Syria and Iraq: an international coalition of countries involved on a regional scale.
But the U.S. should stay to one side. The White House is thinking of other players to lead this possible alliance: Egypt, perhaps France or Italy.
In 2011, America took part in a war (against Gadhafi) that, according to Obama, should have been conducted entirely by Europe. In this case, recent silence makes it clear how unwilling Obama is to embark on another war.
The Scandal Involving Hillary Clinton
And then there is another issue of internal politics. Hillary Clinton, candidate for the next presidential elections, is open to attack on Libya. The Republicans are accusing her of having taken a very casual approach to the security of the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which was the target of a terrorist attack in 2012 in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other officials were killed.
For the Republicans, during her time as secretary of state, Clinton underestimated the alarms and threats. This is one of the Republicans' weapons against the former first lady in the next electoral campaign. Another reason for the Obama administration to stay on the sidelines regarding Libya.
Libya does not appear anywhere near the top of Barack Obama's list of priorities. At least, this is how it seems from looking at White House declarations from recent days.
[There is] horror and condemnation for the Islamic State group’s beheading of Coptic Christians, but no sign of possible military action against Islamic militants in Sirte.
This does not mean that there is no concern about the possible expansion of the caliphate's followers, even on the Libyan coast, but the Obama administration seems to be taking a very cautious approach to providing any answers.
This is for many reasons: partly because of internal policies, and also because of reasons linked to Obama's strategy for fighting the Islamic State group.
Authorization for Use of Force
Obama has recently requested authorization from Congress to use force against the caliphate. The draft resolution contains precise limits for military action. This was done deliberately by Obama to bind his successor. The requested war authorization sent to Capitol Hill is for the next three years, which is 12 months after the end of his presidency.
Moreover, the White House's request also contains geographical limitations. The document refers only to Syria and Iraq. Obama does not want to extend further. He does not want to use American armed forces on other fronts. Intervention in Libya would therefore be excluded.
Some Republican members of Congress, however, would like the mandate to be extended. Terrorism has to be fought everywhere, they say. The White House, for the time being, does not see things this way. Obama and the Pentagon are concentrating their efforts on the war in the Middle East.
Efforts Concentrated on Syria and Above All on Iraq
Within a few days, the Iraqi army's offensive to recapture Mosul, the country's second largest city, is due to start. The U.S. Air Force Reserve will play an important role, as will the U.S. ground troops who will be supporting soldiers from Baghdad.
This will be the first time that the Marines come face to face with Islamic State militants. It is a delicate step for President Obama. America will be on the frontline. And this is why they prefer to stay on the sidelines on the Libyan front.
Another Country at the Helm of Possible Intervention
Obama is known to favor the diplomatic route. For Libya, the possibility of building a ground alliance against the various Islamic State group divisions will be examined. If this is not possible, they will use the same strategy that was used in Syria and Iraq: an international coalition of countries involved on a regional scale.
But the U.S. should stay to one side. The White House is thinking of other players to lead this possible alliance: Egypt, perhaps France or Italy.
In 2011, America took part in a war (against Gadhafi) that, according to Obama, should have been conducted entirely by Europe. In this case, recent silence makes it clear how unwilling Obama is to embark on another war.
The Scandal Involving Hillary Clinton
And then there is another issue of internal politics. Hillary Clinton, candidate for the next presidential elections, is open to attack on Libya. The Republicans are accusing her of having taken a very casual approach to the security of the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which was the target of a terrorist attack in 2012 in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other officials were killed.
For the Republicans, during her time as secretary of state, Clinton underestimated the alarms and threats. This is one of the Republicans' weapons against the former first lady in the next electoral campaign. Another reason for the Obama administration to stay on the sidelines regarding Libya.
It does not take a genius to figure why America has little interest in getting involved in Libya. It is an awful place that we can’t fix and we have had enough of it. In your story you talk about the U.S. using “ground troops” in Iraq in the battle for Mosul. You are totally mistaken in thinking that there will be any U.S. forces on the ground.