What critics have referred to as Obama's dithering is actually the caution of an administration seeking to balance conflicting values and reflecting a division among senior advisers to the president.
On the one hand, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, national security adviser Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism chief John Brennan all were wary of military action in another Arab state that lacked vital strategic interests of the U.S. They urged caution and were adamant about no U. S. troops on the ground -- which would likely evoke further anti-American, terrorist-recruiting furor on the Arab Street -- as well as concern among a war-weary American public.
Countering arguments of these three men were three women: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and senior NSC aide Samantha Power, who emphasized the humanitarian cause as well as supporting the fight for democracy against a dictator. The women prevailed, not just with persuasive powers but by themselves influencing the decisive events that shifted the balance: getting the Arab League to request UN action (Clinton) and then getting the decisive Security Council vote (Rice).
One thing all the advisers agreed upon was genuine partnership with allies and no military intervention without UN authorization. Part of this consensus too was that the US would let France and Britain take the lead and that no US ground troops would enter Libya. Even our involvement in air patrols and air strikes would be limited "to weeks, not months."
According to Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress,
Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-5 vote, which is no easy thing [actually it was 10-0 with 5 abstentions] . . . . [This] puts the United States in a much stronger position because they've got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 Gulf war then the 2003 Iraq war.Hillary Clinton was apparently the key player here in tipping the balance. At first she shared Obama's and Gates' caution, but then on Tuesday night in her hotel room in Paris conferring with Arabic foreign ministers, she reflected on the inconsistency of our responding to the various situations in the Arab world. Her thinking shifted to the humanitarian and democracy causes, and she shared her strong feelings about this with Obama.
Her arguments now helped sway his thinking, along with the unfolding events -- the U.N. decisive vote and Gaddafi's escalating destruction of the uprising. What followed was Obama's speaking out forcefully, now with UN backing and strong allies cooperating. He issued an ultimatum to Gaddafi and said military strikes would begin within hours.
As of this writing, French planes have already destroyed several Libyan tanks, and the no-fly zone has begun.
Hillary Clinton continues to impress me with her knowledge and her skill on the world stage. Secretary of State seems the ideal role for her, and she is performing with the best of them, in my opinion.
Ralph
PS: Nothing sexist was intended by my focus on the men vs the women in this backstage difference of emphasis. I just thought it was interesting that it was the men who were cautious and urging restraint and the women who pushed for us to move boldly to protect the Libyan rebels and its people.
ReplyDeleteIt's a strange twist, since in this case (unlike the Bush crowd) the more hawkish were the ones who were inspired by humanitarian values, while the more cautious were the ones focused on strategic interests and global policy.