- ‘Gay Jeans’ that fade into rainbow-colored denim created
- Divided court strikes down big porn award
- Jimmy Carter: Don’t hurt Russian people with sanctions
- Oldest ex-MLB player dies in Cuba, 2 days shy of 103rd birthday
- ‘Top Gun’ for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy’s approval
- Bill Clinton to endorse Charlie Rangel for re-election
- Pfc. Bradley Manning is now Pfc. Chelsea Manning: Court says so
- Secret base U.S. special forces used to train Libyans now under terrorist control: report
- 9th suspect in N.C. kidnapping turns self in to FBI
- L.A. sheriff admits to testing flyover spy program without notifying residents
Obama: Libya is international model
Critics question president’s authority, handling of mission
Almost six months to the day after he committed U.S. troops to aid Libya’s rebels, President Obama on Tuesday declared his policy a success and told the United Nations its strategy of collective sanctions, military protection and humanitarian assistance saved thousands of lives, ousted a bad regime and should serve as a model for future world hot spots.
“This is how the international community should work in the 21st century — more nations bearing the responsibility and costs of meeting global challenges,” Mr. Obama said. “Indeed, it is the very purpose of this United Nations. So every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping Libyans reclaim their country. It was the right thing to do.”
Even as he was meeting at the U.N., though, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary told reporters he deployed more American troops to Tripoli to secure U.S. property; ousted leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi taunted the newly installed government by videotape; and the country’s temporary leader, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, president of the National Transitional Council, said additional humanitarian assistance would be needed to bolster the troubled country.
Now the post-mortem evaluation of the war begins, and analysts questioned whether Mr. Obama could have acted more forcefully, potentially speeding Col. Gadhafi’s ouster, and whether the prolonged fight may have made it tougher to secure the regime’s weapons. There are reports that anti-aircraft missiles have gone missing.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, said they hoped the experience has soured the country on similar intervention in the future.
“If President Obama is declaring that Libya is a success, it would serve him well to look back at the challenge that President Bush faced when he declared ‘mission accomplished’ in Iraq,” said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat. “I also think that any interventionism model which ignores the Constitution and ignores the budget realities of the United States is doomed.”
The conflict claimed the lives of 30,000 Libyans and injured 50,000, the transition government said this month. The cost of American efforts, meanwhile, were slated to total about $1 billion in operations costs and munitions.
The U.S. role began March 19 when American planes led a NATO effort to establish a no-fly zone. Mr. Obama at the time pointed to the call by Arab countries for help, as well as a U.N. mandate to protect civilians, as evidence of the world’s resolve.
The U.S. eventually transferred control of the no-fly zone to NATO, though American forces continued to provide key capabilities.
Six months later, the success of the military side of the operation is unquestioned in Washington, but the other implications are being hotly debated.
From the start, members of Congress questioned the president’s authority to commit troops without seeking Congress’ approval, and Mr. Kucinich led a group that sued, asking a court to rule against the deployment.
Efforts in the House to force him to curtail operations failed only because opponents couldn’t agree on how tough to write the limitations.
In the Senate, though, many lawmakers criticized him for not moving strenuously enough. The Senate was working on a resolution backing the president’s deployment when the fight over raising the debt limit distracted lawmakers and derailed those efforts.
Though the congressional stalemate left Mr. Obama with a free hand to pursue the war, the politics might have curtailed some options he otherwise could have pursued, said Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence committee.
“By putting it in that context, we limited pretty severely some other things and other capabilities we could have brought to bear, to the fight that I argue could have brought it to conclusion sooner, and protected our national security interests,” Mr. Rogers, a Michigan Republican, said at the American Enterprise Institute last week, arguing that it could have helped in particular to secure chemical weapons and anti-aircraft missiles in the former government’s arsenal.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- No comment on petition to deport Bieber
- Red-state Democrats blast latest Keystone delay
- 'Deport Bieber' petition draws no comment from White House
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador's visa, but says law is 'advisory'
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Obama's veil of secrecy is pierced
- Pentagon plans to replace flight crews with 'full-time' robots
- 'Top Gun' for drones: Squadrons of carrier-based killers have Navy's approval
- Kansas will nullify local regulation of guns
- Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy hailed as patriot, ripped as lawless deadbeat
- CARSON: When government looks more like foe than friend
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- Washington Redskins' 2014 schedule opens with Texans
- Texas is next! AG warns BLM wants 90,000 acres after Bundy ranch standoff
- Georgia governor signs bill expanding gun rights
- Opposition rising to Colorado gun control laws
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
Celebrity deaths in 2014