the President also did a grand slam against the Iraq fiasco--"let me be blunt...". I for one remain sceptical of this Libyan mission, moreso if US airpower continues against ground targets not even ostensibly in support of humanitarian civilian protection, but direct aid to advancing rebel forces. But the President can not be faulted for action upon a valid principle of needed change. How I can say that and not be hypocritical regarding OIF, I haven't figured out yet.
Two questions came to my mind while the President spoke tonight:
The fallback, the negative default, has always been--as if it makes everything else ok--is "no American boots on the ground". How is massive airpower any different, especially if used offensively in support of rebel advances. Use of AC-130 and a-10's can't be fully explained in a humanitarian role. Also, how can the man state that this mission is to save civilians solely, not regime change, but the de facto mission is regime change--Khadaffi must go? "Hasten the day when Khadaffi leaves.." he said.

As a 'workman-like' speech, unimpressive rhetorically yet informative and clear in its intent, the President did fine. What he didn't do was make a speech that will convince anyone who has already made up their mind. So be it.

I'd still argue the power of US action in Libya comes moreso in the example it sets -- the 'precedent' everyone worries about and rightfully, regardless of whether or not one feels it carries too much risk and should preclude continued engagement in Libya or elsewhere -- rather than the specific implications in Libya. It does put the Obama administration, and possibly future administrations, in the precarious position of appearing alternately hypocritical (Bahrain) and interventionist (Syria?), all the while Iraq exists as the elephant in the room. Domestically, it has opened the administration up to criticism of its fledgling democratic Mid-East policy when the President himself owes his election in part to running against the previous adminstration's not dissimilar policy.

I agree with you Mr. Ricks that the road would seem to end in Saudi Arabia. Already, we have deferred to the kingdom in Bahrain. And this may serve as some kind of solace for those worried about the precedent US action in Libya and the President's reasons for acting has set -- the US will not act in every scenario. Inaction in Bahrain has as much to do with Saudi pre-eminence on the Peninsula, as it does the long-term basing ot the Fifth Fleet. This kind of selective application reeks of 'status quo' and certainly follows on the parameters the previous administration placed on its 'war on terror,' which supposedly would go after any and all nations that 'aid' or 'support' terrorism yet, conspicuously, did not push the Saudis too hard considering much of the movement that contributed to the rise of Al-Qa'ida came from Wahhabist clerics in the kingdom, as well as financial aid that originated there too.

If there is a 'silver lining', you point to the President's speech in Cairo two years ago, and now go back to Candidate Obama, to argue that in spite of the similarities to Bush 43's regional policy, this one is executed by a man with divergently different motivations. I'm not so sure, given the rampant uncertainty and the pressures on any American president to maintain regional stability. But, if the road does run to Saudi Arabia (via the road from Damascus?), we'd have to fall back on the President's words in Cairo and tonight if we're to believe it's 'Obama of Arabia' and not 'Bush of Baghdad.'

Interesting to see, in spite of other inconsistencies, the President is consistent on a situation like Libya, then Darfur, when he said this to Mr. Zakaria in the interview you linked to:

'In a situation like Darfur, I think that the world has a self-interest in ensuring that genocide is not taking place on our watch. Not only because of the moral and ethical implications, but also because chaos in Sudan ends up spilling over into Chad. It ends up spilling over into other parts of Africa, can end up being repositories of terrorist activity.'

Firstly the President's reference to "the North Star" had nothing to do with abolition. If anyone knew their basic politics, they would also know that President Obama's favorite President was Lincoln. I mean come on, he announced his candidacy in Springfield, IL in honor of him. Walt Whitman wrote a poem in where he eulogizes Lincoln and referencing him as our "North Star." This was meant as a metaphor in where Lincoln becomes a symbol for the nation to look for hope. But I suppose Mr. Ricks skipped literature in college. Anyway-that is what our very brilliant President was trying to "evoke." And he did it with class. It's too bad so many of our politicians and pundits are not drawing inspiration from our past intellects and history. Get it right next time.

Firstly the President's reference to "the North Star" had nothing to do with abolition. If anyone knew their basic politics, they would also know that President Obama's favorite President was Lincoln. I mean come on, he announced his candidacy in Springfield, IL in honor of him. Walt Whitman wrote a poem in where he eulogizes Lincoln and referencing him as our "North Star." This was meant as a metaphor in where Lincoln becomes a symbol for the nation to look for hope. But I suppose Mr. Ricks skipped literature in college. Anyway-that is what our very brilliant President was trying to "evoke." And he did it with class. It's too bad so many of our politicians and pundits are not drawing inspiration from our past intellects and history. Get it right next time.

Let's not overanalyze this and invoke Occam's Razor instead. I suspect that, with support from Secretary Clinton, the President really did fear mass killings on the order of Rwanda and the Balkans. But even more important, Ghadafi, unlike sadam Hussain, has actually attacked and killed Americas.

The Sa'ud Kingdom watch out? Presidential administrations and their policies may come and go, but the free flow of Gulf oil dictates realpolitik, which means President Obama knows Saudi Arabia will be of vital interest to the U.S. for some time to come.

The President gave a fine speech. Perhaps he should have given it earlier and gotten out ahead of the issue of why Libya, and U.S. intentions?

I listened to the speech and heard Obama articulate more realism than Wilsonian idealism. He spoke of interests and balancing interests against costs of military adventures. He distinguished between actions related to security interests (Afghanistan, al Quaeda) and Iraq, where American interests were less clear. He told the "depose Qaddafi" uber-Hawks that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. He acknowledged that America had economic and commercial interests that might require action.

Of course, there was a nod, as there must be with any American president, to American idealism. And an attempt to bridge the gap between interest and realism. But even there, it seems to me that the suggestion was that he wouldn't commit the United States by itself in support of ideals without international authorization and an international coalition to reduce the costs for America.

Not to go all mid-20th century on you, but I heard Reinhold Niebuhr. It's a speech that would bring a smile to Andrew Bacevich's face (if Dr. Bacevich smiled).

It sounded like a doctrine to me.

And I think under the guidelines he laid out, you can sleep tight if you're a Saudi prince.

Personally, I don’t put much stock in Presidential speeches as being particularly revelatory. They are basically public relations devices, which in an era of micro attention spans are forgotten in days if not hours. Churchill, Lincoln and FDR all understood the real value of rhetoric was not to inform but to inspire. A hired speech writer’s oblique references to the War for Independence and Douglass’s ‘North Star’ didn’t cut mustard with me largely because they were historically ‘forced’ analogies that lacked any relevancy with the situation in Libya.

Yet at the same time Obama did something that as a nation we are pretty unused to after years of Bush/Cheney flippancy and wise guy speechifying. Obama has the grace to speak to his audience on a serious matter like they are adults without the fake posturing of Bush/Cheney who seemed to hold even their more avid supporters in veiled contempt. And for that I thank him.

I found the speech, once it arrived, to be straight from the shoulder, functional, utterely lacking in histrionics, adult.

To me, the tell is in the pointed sentiment that Libya is doable. The home team needs a win. It would be best if it was an unambiguous win in service of an unambiguous cause, but the nation, long beseiged by Chinese puzzles and Hobson's choices, simply needs something to feel good about.

I have the sense that the administration has been auditioning crises in search of one that would yield the biggest win for the price. How could it not be Libya? I think that Egypt was a favorite until cool heads argued against the inevitable complications =any= Egyptian scenario would yield. Yemen is not reachable, nor, really, is Syria. The farther from Israel the better. No one wants to support Shi'i against Sunna in Bahrain, which doesn't face Europe in any case.

From a strictly geographical/logistical standpoint, it pretty much had to be Libya. Getting rid of Ghaddafi is a bonus.

So, can the home team score an easy victory we can feel good about while sending an ambiguous enough message to tyrants farther afield that the U.S. altruism train is back on the tracks, ready to roll to a revolution near you?

...into the mist of Republican sideshow barkers, Trump and Fox fools and paid camp followers currently seeking Iowa by resurrecting the re-imposition of Dred Scott and repeal of the 14th Amendment. A Birther, the modern bigot, underpins the party of Lincoln now and seeks to reduce a President to the equivalent of owned cattle by denying his birth as an American. He has sent a warning to them that there is anger growing - their antics will not continue without costs that are greater than current hen picking on the View.

So I still don't get it, are we dialing it up or are we dialing it down?

Does COL have to go or are we trying to avert humanitarian crisis?

For US the crisis will be when COL regime collapses and their is blood in the streets, refugees pouring into neighbors and South Europe, a threat to destabilze Egypt and Tunisia. The Pols are going to decide that is not exactly the endstate the were looking for ("Escape from New York"). The same wonderful folks who pushed for the No Fly/Drive/Walk/Nosepick Zone will be looking for a stability force. Two weeks ago we weren't going to do No Fly, it is easy for the Admin to say NO BOG now, we're not at the decsion point yet, they are likely to renege when the crisis comes.

Same logic will apply, it will still be a "moral imperative", US will still be indispensable. "Only US can do C4I, only US can do logistics", and eventually .... Only US can do the stability force.

What struck me was the ice cold reception Mr. Obama received from the officers who have to carry out his politicized policy of "Libya yes, Darfur no, Syria maybe."

Perhaps he should have made the speech before a hand-picked crowd of Organizing for America volunteers? It would have been received better.

In my case, you go from teaching to journalism, spend 20 years covering the military, write four books about it, and go to Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan and wherever else the U.S. military goes.
Cheers,
Tom

There is no Obama Doctrine

I'm sure that we can go back through Pres' writings, speeches, and interviews and find lots to support his position (whatever that is) on Libya. I have HEARD that "the exception proves the rule" but I think that 30-40 exceptions probably disprove the rule.

I bet I can name 20 countries w totalitarian Govts that are essentially waging war on their on people. I can go to G2 and get 20 more. It is the inconsistency that looks strange. Intervention in Libya was largely driven by the idea that Libya is some great OPPORTUNITY that was too good to miss.

as long as we dont get sucked into ground operations I will chalk this up as a W for President Obama. IF he can keep us out of a quagmire, he will have probably won himself my vote in 2012.

Libya and Gadhafi is an easy one to do that encourages the increasingly isolationist US public to pause to consider that sometimes interventions of this kind under a wise and prudent commander in chief working with the global community of democracies can be a good thing. That other US allies are involved and Nato in particular is taking the lead, and that the Arab League is line dancing around the fire helps considerably more. Add to it that Gadhafi is globally recognized as the North African Rat makes what should be named Operation North Star more of a hit.This is not Kuwait-Saddam 1991: Even if Lybia is partitioned and Gadhafi stays in the western half no one loses except Gadhafi. Saddam in 1991 and Saddam on the rope Dec 30th 2006 is is the stark lesson to a surviving M'ammar on his side of any new line of demarcation in Lybia.

If this contributes to Syria dissolving into oblivion it will be all the better for everyone. I remain greatly concerned that the people of Egypt did only half the job then went home, leaving the forming of a new government and society in the hands of organized religious groups. As to Saudi Arabia, democracy and freedom will have its day there too, just not for some considerable while yet. After all, this is the season of the Arab Spring; for Saudi Arabia to transform will require a Wahabbi Winter.

AC-130 and A-10 off the bench and in the game? Now I know there are CCT and ANGLICO on the ground there....

Though Obama may have stumbled out the gate during the Arab Spring in relation to the peaceful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, he is still the American President and with that comes a lot more concerns than idealism.

There is no way that the United States will let the House of Saud fall. Stalwart "allies" aside, there's absolutely no way of predicting the powers that would take over the Kingdom. Even if they were democratic, there's no telling how long that would last, whether or not they'd one day embrace the extremist of certain elements, or (most importantly) whether or not they would be pro-United States.

Mubarak dealt with Egypt comparatively peacefully, and he fell. Arguably, rightly so. However, there is so much more at stake in Saudi Arabia than anywhere else. The loss of Saudi Arabia and Egypt would give a tremendous advantage to Iran and potentially Syria if it makes it through the current upheavals. Further, the Kingdom has been an important stabilizer in the neighbouring states (Bahrain) and provides an exorbitant amount of American oil outside of Canada. Given the drawdown of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the deficit, and recession, Obama cannot let the region further destabilize, or it will start to really hurt at home.

If Saudi Arabia fell, the MENA region would be in for a monumental shift. Obama would be best served to come down hard on any dissenters in his nation's own self-interest. After all, the American people elected him to guard their national interests, not the Saudis. After awhile, the rhetoric of democracy promotion only goes so far, yielding to a realist pragmatism.