Conservative President/Reactive Presidency-- US Marines On The Shores Of Tripoli?

I have very mixed emotions about the situation in Libya. I'm not fan of the Qaddafi family and I sympathize with what I image is a yearning for freedom and dignity on the part of Libyans. No fan of Obama's, I've been impressed by how restrained he's been in committing America to acting as the policeman of the world-- until late last week, when he suddenly seems to have caved in to warmongering assholes McCain, Lieberman and Kerry. Robert Naiman's spot-on analysis, The UN Security Council Has Not Authorized Regime Change, notwithstanding, Friday I heard Hillary Clinton on the radio yammering about this not ending until Qaddafi is gone. Suddenly we went from a restrained and modest policy to... more regime change-- and enforcing it with our overstretched military. And this at a time when the most basic contract between the American people and our filthy, corrupt political elites is being ruptured on smoldering ruin of public education and the shreds of what's left of what Reagan once contemptuously called the social safety net. How did Obama come to the 180?

The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as "extremely contentious." Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.

But Obama's stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention - instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."

The Administration seems to be talking out of many sides of many mouths. Just as the Secretary of State was unequivocal about Qaddafi having to leave-- a definition of regime change-- CNN was reporting that "The purpose of the no-fly zone, the administration official said, is to prevent Gadhafi from attacking his own people. 'It's not designed to have him go. That's not the purpose,' the official said. 'The purpose of the military action is to prevent massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the violence stops, then you shouldn't leap to say then the military action will continue until he leaves.'" Presumably someone will let the Secretary of State know.

Friday, Congressman Jerry Nadler, former chairman and now ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, warned the Administration not to attack Libya without congressional approval-- as Ron Paul had done 2 weeks earlier. "The President," wrote Nadler, "has an obligation under the Constitution to seek the approval of Congress for any use of military force unless there is an imminent threat to the United States or its allies. Congress and the nation must have the opportunity to consider what is being proposed, what the potential implications of that action would be, and whether we, as a nation, wish to undertake the full consequences of that action. The Constitution, rightly, does not allow a single person to commit the nation to war, even where there is a good reason to do so. Where there is no imminent threat that does not allow for prior consideration, we must follow that process."

Since then Qaddafi announced an immediate ceasefire-- which he immediately broke and tried to knockout resistance based in Benghazi. And the fighting was engaged, at least by French and Italian pilots, with Brits, Americans and Canadians following. Obama's Friday address on Libya was meant to persuade the American public, which overwhelmingly opposes another war in the Middle East:

Over the last several weeks, the world has watched events unfold in Libya with hope and alarm. Last month, protesters took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights, and a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations. But they were met with an iron fist.
 
Within days, whole parts of the country declared their independence from a brutal regime, and members of the government serving in Libya and abroad chose to align themselves with the forces of change. Moammar Qaddafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.
 
Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Qaddafi chose the path of brutal suppression.  Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned, and in some cases killed. Peaceful protests were forcefully put down. Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared. A campaign of intimidation and repression began.
 
In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly.  Sanctions were put in place by the United States and our allies and partners. The U.N. Security Council imposed further sanctions, an arms embargo, and the specter of international accountability for Qaddafi and those around him. Humanitarian assistance was positioned on Libya’s borders, and those displaced by the violence received our help. Ample warning was given that Qaddafi needed to stop his campaign of repression, or be held accountable. The Arab League and the European Union joined us in calling for an end to violence.
 
Once again, Qaddafi chose to ignore the will of his people and the international community. Instead, he launched a military campaign against his own people. And there should be no doubt about his intentions, because he himself has made them clear.
 
For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi-- a city of roughly 700,000 people -- he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity”-- no mercy on his own citizens.
 
Now, here is why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.
 
And that’s why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.
 
Yesterday, in response to a call for action by the Libyan people and the Arab League, the U.N. Security Council passed a strong resolution that demands an end to the violence against citizens. It authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing, to include the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya. It also strengthens our sanctions and the enforcement of an arms embargo against the Qaddafi regime.
 
Now, once more, Moammar Qaddafi has a choice. The resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.
 
In this effort, the United States is prepared to act as part of an international coalition. American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone-– it means shaping the conditions for the international community to act together. 
 
That’s why I have directed Secretary Gates and our military to coordinate their planning, and tomorrow Secretary Clinton will travel to Paris for a meeting with our European allies and Arab partners about the enforcement of Resolution 1973. We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone. I have no doubt that the men and women of our military are capable of carrying out this mission. Once more, they have the thanks of a grateful nation and the admiration of the world.
 
I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya. And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya. In the coming weeks, we will continue to help the Libyan people with humanitarian and economic assistance so that they can fulfill their aspirations peacefully. 
 
Now, the United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.  It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it. We are coordinating closely with them. And this is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law.
 
This is just one more chapter in the change that is unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa. From the beginning of these protests, we have made it clear that we are opposed to violence. We have made clear our support for a set of universal values, and our support for the political and economic change that the people of the region deserve. But I want to be clear: the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab World. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny.
 
Let me close by saying that there is no decision I face as your Commander in Chief that I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force. Particularly at a time when our military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more difficult. But the United States of America will not stand idly by in the face of actions that undermine global peace and security. So I have taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong.

As far as this not being about regime change: bullshit. There's no way the U.S. and its allies can allow the Qaddafis to remain in charge of Libya.