We often hear how history repeats itself, but rarely does it happen so clearly and quickly.
As U.S. forces continue their attack against Libya, President Barack Obama has found himself in the precarious position of defending actions similar to those he denounced not so long ago.
There is no doubt that the complex history of U.S. interventionist policies played into Obama’s decision to go into Libya. But while his speech Monday reminded us that the U.S. was acting with more international support than in the past, it failed to show the clarity and foresight that he demanded before he was in office and promised when he took it.
In fact, portions of the speech sounded far too similar to what the president campaigned against. It must be noted that there are important differences and implications of action in Libya versus Iraq, but the principles that Obama used to justify one war are contrary to those he used to oppose another.
In fact, part of Obama’s justification for the military action in Libya could have come straight from former President George W. Bush’s justification of the war in Iraq.
“[Col. Muammar Gaddafi] has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world,” Obama said Monday night.
This isn’t to say these statements aren’t true. Gaddafi, like Saddam Hussein, is an oppressive ruler guilty of horrible crimes against humanity.
But Obama campaigned adamantly against the war in Iraq on the grounds that these reasons aren’t enough to intervene. Whether you support the military action or not, the stark inconsistency in the president’s policy raises serious questions as to what he stands for under pressure.
It was equally puzzling to figure out what exactly the goal is in Libya.
“Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Gaddafi out of power … But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake,” the president said.
The contradiction here is palpable. By intervening in Libya’s civil war, we’ve taken a stance against Gaddafi. He has shown he will do anything to stay in power, and that’s what got the coalition forces involved.
The only firm promise that came from last night’s speech was that American ground forces won’t be sent into Libya. This is an important promise to keep, and we hope our international partners are able to take over quickly without relying heavily on the already stretched American forces.
We hope we can take this one clear commitment and rely on it while the president decides which side of his own debate he wants to ultimately take.
We fully support the decision to support the Libyan people in their quest for liberty, but if Obama is not careful, he will become the antithesis of what he has universally condemned.
