The 60-day deadline for Obama to engage in military action in Libya without Congress's blessing has come and gone. And whether they support the mission against Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi or not, members of Congress are finally starting to mobilize to address the issue. While some are stuck on the constitutionality of the president's actions, others, it seems, are just asking the same question as much of the country: What are Obama and NATO actually trying to do in Libya?
Most recently with reported air strikes on government facilities in Tripoli, NATO forces in Libya continue to target the Qadhafi regime under United Nations Resolution 1973, which clears the way for member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" in Libya. So, as long as NATO and leaders of its member states, like Obama, remain convinced that Qadhafi himself is a threat to civilians, it's likely they will keep at it until the Libyan leader steps down or is killed. "Qadhafi's forces still represent a threat to civilians and we will continue to strike targets that carry out this violence," said the NATO commander overseeing the the Libya operation, Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard. [See photos of the unrest in Libya.]
Indeed, Obama, speaking alongside British Prime Minister David Cameron during his visit to Europe, clearly called for Qadhafi to hand over his power for the safety of his own people. "We are working together in Libya, alongside with our NATO allies and partners, to protect the Libyan people. And we will continue those operations until Qadhafi's attacks on civilians cease," he said at a press conference with Cameron. Later he added, "Time is working against Qadhafi and he must step down from power and leave Libya to the Libyan people."
However, while Obama speaks on behalf of America abroad, members of Congress back in Washington are feeling a bit left out of the process, claiming that the president hasn't been clear with lawmakers about his intent in Libya. Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot, chairman of the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, says that so far, the president has offered "no plans, no timelines, [and] no contingencies" to explain his leadership so far in the conflict. "We need serious answers, and we need them now," Chabot said. [Vote now: Was Obama right on Libya’s no-fly zone?]
The president has been careful to emphasize that apart from the initial engagement in Libya in which the U.S. military played a central role, the United States has assumed a supporting role only in the ongoing NATO-led operation since at least April 4. According to a letter from the president to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi signed May 20, that role includes "non-kinetic support" like intelligence, logistical, and search and rescue assistance; aircraft in support of the no-fly zone; and the use of "unmanned aerial vehicles." He and members of his administration have also regularly said that no ground troops would be sent into the country.
John Pike, national security expert and the director of Globalsecurity.org, says that the president has now taken this periphery position mostly because there's little constituency for military intervention in Libya back home in the States. "Mr. Obama got elected on 'give peace a chance,'" says Pike. "He doesn't want this to be known as Obama's war."
Nevertheless, other NATO countries like France and Italy do have strong popular support for what they are calling a "humanitarian" mission, Pike says. To that end, Illinois Republican Rep. Don Manzullo says that the president is "following the lead of NATO, UN, Arab League to the exclusion of Congress." Among NATO member states, countries like Russia are also challenging the use of military action in this conflict. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the Middle East uprisings.]
Reader Comments