-
Related
During the past few days several things have become apparent in the handling of the Libyan crisis.
The first is that President Obama is a changeable fellow. It's difficult to believe, but until about this time last week, he was against a no-fly zone. This was the considered policy of the Obama administration, with Defence Secretary Robert Gates in full agreement.
Surrogates had been dispatched to Congress, and they'd told American lawmakers of the various dangers involved.
Old soldiers like Senator John McCain and John Kerry were calling for action, but they were voices in the wilderness.
America, we were told, had had enough of war.
This of course was the exact time that a no-fly zone might have been useful.
Gaddafi's forces were on the back foot, and popular resolve was firming against his tyrannical government.
He'd appeared on Libyan state television under a parasol in a street in Tripoli, declaiming incoherently. Nothing new there.
The weeks ticked by, the tide turned in Gaddafi's favour.
Then Mr Obama changed his mind, bowing to pressure from Hillary Clinton (perhaps recalling the world's slowness in doing the same over Bosnia), and UN Ambassador Susan Rice.
The US was losing prestige in the region ("What?" one wants to ask, "in the Middle East?").
And the intelligence on the ground was that Gaddafi was using tanks and heavy artillery against rebel cities.
Obama's change was significant. It meant the rupture of a convivial relationship between Gates and Clinton.
It meant that the Defence Department was effecting State Department outcomes, though not on the State Department's dime.
And it meant - most worryingly - that the US was now making foreign policy on the fly.
America, having sworn off war, would have a small one, please, and just the tastiest bit.
Completely devoured is any credibility for the Arab League. The Americans must be reminding themselves: 'If you want to deal seriously with an Arab leader, prepare for disappointment.' (I suppose this goes two ways; just ask Hosni Mubarak his opinion of the US.)
One of the pivoting factors for Obama was the Arab League's support for a no-fly zone the weekend before Hillary Clinton made her plea.
Almost as soon as the bombs and cruise missiles began to rain down on Tripoli, the Arab League changed its mind.
Too severe, it said. Um, just what kind of no-fly zone did it have in mind?
Some are saying in the US that Obama should have stood by and watched Gaddafi slaughter his own people like sheep. That's a cost of being president.
Sometimes you act; sometimes you don't, and people die.
I don't know. I do agree that Libya isn't in the US's strategic interests. Oh, sure there's oil, but Libya isn't even in the top 15 of oil exporters to the US.
Also, will the rebels, if they're successful, decide America is a friend and reward it with black gold? Confusion remains about who the rebels actually are.
But those rebels are - in effect - America's allies. And there are calls from the very left of the Democrat party to impeach Obama. They won't amount to anything. The latest polls here showed some support for American involvement in Libya, but if problems mount with the mission, that will erode.
No-fly doesn't mean no risk. The two pilots who survived the F-15 crash know that.
President Obama waited too long to make the right decision. In doing so, he may have made the wrong one.
Read more Tim Wilson opinion
World News Video
-
Dangerous rush to Everest summit (1:59)
-
Dozens killed in Syrian massacre (2:09)
-
'King of Romance' competes in Eurovision (1:46)
