Recently at a dinner hosted by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, former National Security Adviser to two U.S. presidents, Brent Scowcroft stated in response to a question about what Barack Obama should do given the tumult in the Middle East, "President Obama should slow things down, move slowly, cautiously and not get swept into the emotional currents we see rising up in Egypt and throughout the Middle East."
President Obama has been criticized by many on the political left and right for moving too slowly in reacting to Libya -- and while I have been one constantly urging caution -- there is simply no truth to the notion that Obama dragged his heels in orchestrating action there.
Obama and his team -- everyone from Tom Donilon and Denis McDonough, who ran a rigorous decision-making shop comprised of dozens of deputies and principals level meetings; to the team of Samantha Power, Ben Rhodes, Tommy Vietor, Gail Smith, Dan Shapiro, Michael McFaul, Dennis Ross, Jake Sullivan at State, and others from Treasury and DoD did a commendable job of outreach respectively to policy wonks, to national security journalists, and to members of the legislative branch and their staffs; to the diplomatic heavy lifting done by Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice; to the heavy internal molding of options and consideration of downside risk by Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Gates -- everyone moved at warp speed compared to other potential and real humanitarian disasters to with the US and international community needed to respond.
Consider these cases:
1. It took three years for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia -- while it took nine days after the outbreak of fighting for the UN Security Council to create a committee monitoring violations in Libya.
2. Also in the case of the former Yugoslavia, it took more than one year to get an asset freeze on Bosnia and two years to get a travel ban. Again, it took just nine days to secure an asset freeze and travel ban with regard to Libya.
3. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, it took more than one year after the first bombing of civilians by the Yugoslav Air Force to impose a no fly zone -- and just 31 days after the Libyan protests began.
4. In the case of Rwanda, an International Criminal Tribunal took seven months to establish vs. nine days in the case of Libya.
5. In Rwanda, no air strikes were ever authorized to protect civilians vs. the 31 days it took to get a UN Security Council Resolution imposing a no-fly zone including civilian protection.
6. In the case of Darfur, travel bans and asset freezes took two years to put in place vs. nine days for Libya.
7. Again with regard to Darfur, a referral to the International Criminal Court took two years while just nine days with Libya.
8. Finally, while Libyan opposition and civilians got protection within 31 days from when protests started, Sudan never received civilian protection support.
Thus, by any standard given the long time that transpired before an international consensus took shape and before the President of the United States began to invest his time, Libya and the decisions made by the Obama White House -- whether one liked or disliked those decisions -- happened at an incredible rate.
I'm with Scowcroft and think that there is a tsunami of change happening now and that the U.S. needs to be careful about getting drawn in too deeply into any particular part of this transition. We need to weigh our actions carefully and not make the change happening about us. The lens needs to remain on the people fighting for a different future.
All that said, Obama and his team are moving at a comparatively lightning rate of speed on Libya -- and simultaneously managing many other issues and crises at the same time ranging from ongoing concerns about Egypt, new problems in Syria and Yemen, and of course there is the triple nightmare disaster in Japan. And did I mention that the North Koreans have been sending signals that they may start misbehaving again if we don't help them with their fuel, energy, and cash needs?
I don't agree with everything this White House does -- but I have tremendous respect for the fact that Obama and his team have changed the dynamics of response to potential and real mass human tragedy.
Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons
Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCClemons
This was a political act - nothing more: to appear decisive, but with conflicting rhetoric it's looking pathetic at best. Let's hope that Obama has some luck and the situation doesn't fall apart on the ground.
www.theclassicalliberal.com
You state as fact that his decisions are based on 'realistic analysis', but the assessment of the situation by many other experts, who have access to that same information (military leaders, former ambassadors, etc.) varies widely from that of our President. Would you have used the argument "he has access to more information than those criticizing him" to defend his predecessor? I suspect not.
To then add to this by implying that those disagreeing with him are doing so because of his race, is an insult. The implication is simple; that race is THE reason for disagreeing with him, not concern over the merits of his actions/decisions. Yet nowhere on this issue have I seen race mentioned. . .until you did so.
If I could not clearly articulate the rationale for this action, in his place, I would not have proceeded with the action. Plain and simple.
He, and his advisors had years to reflect upon and come up with an alternative to Guantanamo. He's been in office for over two years and still. NOTHING. Why? Does Obama now think that Bush made the right decision? If so let his explain his conversion. If not - why has nothing been done.
You seem to think that Libya was Obama's first decision - if this was March 2009 and not March 2011 then your conclusions regrading Obama's critics might have reason. BUT THIS IS 2011. This was a bad idea.
Next time there is a problem in Lebanon (and as Syrian control may be waning it may be closer than you think) do we go in there to save whoever is being slaughtered. There are massacres in Pakistan should we go there?
What makes Libya so important that we have to go there?
The love affair for Obama and the other suspects is well evident in this article. That said, I have to ask: would this author be so charitable for, say, Bush, if he had signed SECRET orders putting the CIA on the ground in a Muslim country, well before he ever talked to anyone in Congress, much less the American public?
The reason ANYTHING moved fast here is because a significant chunk of the European oil pipeline is threatened, pure and simple. This appears to have been the product of a bona fide contingency situation that Europe long ago took seriously enough and anticipated to have a plan of action ready to secure UN and/or NATO approval to deal with! THAT'S why things have moved as fast as they have. I have no problem with our POTUS, regardless of his/her party, moving fast in anticipation of events somewhere, I'm a huge believer in being 'better off safe than sorry'. But I will always call out the undeniable hypocrisy of those who will praise their guy when he does such a thing while they condemn those they oppose politically for doing the same things. The difference between us and them (Europe and the USA) on most things is that they would rather avoid something if they possibly can, WE would rather address it and get it over with ASAP. If Obama has put in place initiatives to 'hit the ground running' well before any notice has come out, that defies any notions HE has put forth that this nation is not in a leadership role.
Speed is nice, but competence is king. We haven't seen much of either from this Administration.
Claiming we have attacked Libya (in a clear act of war) because its people faced a humanitarian crisis is a slap in the face to those suffering slaughter under repressive regimes elsewhere, the list of which is almost too long to recap. As such, that claim is the worst piece of foreign diplomacy since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech.
Selective morality in the Bush administration's use of torture was wrong and cost it any credibility it ever had. Obama now has no more credibility in the world community than they did. There are no Obama voters in Europe or Africa who will swallow whatever tripe he feeds them to alleviate their buyer's remorse. If there was any sense of reason at all he wouldn't even be a serious candidate for a second term.
utter insanity of beginning another war in a Muslim country. Haven't you seen
the condition of the rebels? They look like they are riding their pickups to pick
cotton for the day. While astonishingly we don't know who they are, we can be
bloody well sure that they are woefully unprepared to run a country. None of
Obama's qualifying statements make the endeavor less ill-advised: he has
a coalition of 15 (Bush had 40 into Iraq plus Congressional approval); it is
purely humanitarian to save lives (but not in Darfur, Yemen, Sudan, N Korea,
Ivory Coast); it will be days not weeks or months (and what happens after
Gadhafi); Gadhafi must go (but that's not on our to-do list from the Arab League); it will be turned over to NATO (which is led by an American admiral with the US
providing 25% of the funding). What I find even more outrageous is that there
is bipartisan support! Once again insanity reigns in D.C.
The Resolution did NOT not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urged a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.
The fact that the above-named senators think they voted to approve a no-fly zone is ample reason to knock them on their butts in 2012, allowing them to enter a line of work they understand!
March 1st, 2011 Senate Resolution 85. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.RES.85:
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 1, 2011
Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
Strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms, and for other purposes. (edit)
7th item urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory; (edit)
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2011 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Regarding 'no vote', got proof?
Obama has done well to make this a group effort; we are not doing the "go it alone", which is a good precedent. This is a small military action, not a war; hopefully it will stay that way.
Also, I find it interesting that none of the MSM seems to remember the Lockerbie Bombing (Pan Am Flight 703) Dec '88. 270 fatalities were scored, plus numbers of people in the town that the jet crashed into. These were our people, some were military returning for Christmas from Germany to America. Mohmar Gadafi was supposed to have personally ordered that bombing, & no doubt, he has been busy since then. Even the Arab League is not standing with him.
Time for him to leave. I've no problem with a group bit of "nudging".