While channeling his inner W on the obvious benefits of democracy, everywhere, our president agreed with the UK PM that things in Libya could take some little while:
U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron warned that military operations in Libya will be a long slog that continues until Col. Moammar Gadhafi leaves power, a shift from the president’s initial stance that the military intervention in Libya would be limited in nature.
Mr. Obama’s remarks—first in a news conference with Mr. Cameron, then in a high-profile speech before both houses of Parliament—made clear that the U.S. and its allies are bracing for a long battle not just to remove Col. Gadhafi from power, but also to guide the burgeoning democracy movement in other Arab nations to a successful conclusion.
Within Westminster Hall, the 900-year-old hall that fermented the early development of Britain’s democracy and law courts, Mr. Obama used his speech to set the Libyan effort–and U.S. assistance in the so-called Arab Spring–against a backdrop of the West’s historical fight for democracy, free enterprise and innovation. In that process Mr. Obama said the U.S. has had no greater ally than the U.K.
There’s been a bit of buzz and stir across the pond about the sincerity of the president’s Anglophilia, given his various miscues, gaffes and trompes over the years.
Whatever the situation with the mother country, across the channel France – in the past decade the moral touchstone for the president’s party in international and military affairs – certainly isn’t feeling the love:
France is seeking to hasten the downfall of Libya’s Col. Moammar Gadhafi by targeting military installations more precisely and reaching out to dissidents in Tripoli, as it laments that the U.S. hasn’t played a larger role in the military intervention.
France wants to target some of Col. Gadhafi’s military headquarters in Tripoli and other urban areas with helicopters, Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said in an interview on Wednesday. But he said France wouldn’t count on such contributions from the U.S.
“We regret that, of course,” he said. “We would be more efficient if they joined us.”
Here at home, the WaPo cannot help but notice the inconsistency of President Obama’s message on Libya:
Mr. Obama apparently remains unwilling to rally American resources that are readily available and that Britain and France have repeatedly requested. The allies have asked for the resumption of strike operations by U.S. warplanes that Mr. Obama pulled from the fight in early April. But immediately after acknowledging that more resources are needed, Mr. Obama talked down the prospect of “additional U.S. capabilities,” saying “there are going to be some inherent limitations to our airstrike operations.” He added: “There may be a false perception that there are a whole bunch of secret super-effective air assets that are in a warehouse that could just be pulled out and that would somehow immediately solve the situation in Libya. That’s not the case.”
In fact no one we know of is making that claim — much less Mr. Cameron or French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose appeals for help Mr. Obama is ignoring. What the allies are seeking is no secret: eight or so U.S. AC-130 and A-10 planes, weapons that exist only in the American arsenal and that are ideal for the close ground-support operations that are much needed in Libya.
Mr. Obama appears to take the long view, hoping that eventually Ghaddafi’s regime will succumb to a desultory air attack. But while hope may be a good campaign slogan it is not a strategy, and neither Britain nor France have the political will or military power to afford patience.
“Do or do not. There is no try.” — Yoda
“We didn’t want to spend money on our military so that it could do the job we want it to do. How about if you spend your money instead to do the job so that we can keep pumping our money into social programs, labor unions, long vacations and early retirements?”
Oh, excuse me:
“How about if you spend your people, too, so we don’t have to ask more of our people to actually sacrifice themselves on behalf of our country”
Obama decrying timetables? France demanding help in war? I’d love to write a nice comment, but I can’t, my mind has collapsed from a massive irony overload.
LOL Brian R, + a bunch!
A pox on all their houses–well on France and Obama at least.
Obama went to “kinetic military action” on the cheap and without consulting Congress. Now it’s getting messy and sticky and we get the “What me?” attitude.
When our Reagan era folks took their best shot at Qaddafi in 86 or so, France wouldn’t let the F-111′s overfly France.
This is all playing out like Inspector Clouseau is on the case.
Good to see the A-10 getting some love.
What more can we expect from our fearless leader when he signed the guestbook at Westminster Abbey and dated it 24 May 2008!!!!!
think I’ll send Cameron and Sarkozy some of those “Miss me yet?” smiling GW bumper stickers.
The Frogs must realize that the cheap approach of buying the Eurocopter has them with a requirements/capabilites mismatch. What they really need are Apaches — and they didn’t buy them.
Look at our future — it is playing out right now. Diminished defense budgets have consequences. The French are only fifteen years ahead of us.
Really, they want more US heavy lifting in Libya? Aren’t we doing about 90% of the reconnaissance – since they don’t have those assets? The least they can do is apply bombs to targets.
I think the switch in Obama’s Libya stance comes from a dose of reality – Qadhafi has proven much tougher to remove then originally assessed.
“There’s been a bit of buzz and stir across the pond about the sincerity of the president’s Anglophilia…”
Ya think? Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that after offering the Toast to the Queen, our fearless leader made absolutely no pretense to actually touching lips to glass? Then again, maybe I’m just being too critical given my disgust for our Organizer-in-Chief.
On the other hand, I AM finding it quite amusing that the Frogs don’t think we are pulling our own weight in Libya. This from the country that deigns to send on average about 1/2 of one percent of the combat assets the US provides in our ‘shared’ military activities. Go figure.
Greetings:
I guess France’s President Sarkozy’s plan to cozy up to the Arabs via his Mediterranean Union (EU South ???) and Britain’s oil industry payback for springing the Lockerbie bombing terrorist aren’t materializing as rapidly as desired so “Who you gonna call?”. Muslims killing Muslims just isn’t all that disturbing to me anymore; but then I not expecting a big piece of the “Arab Spring” pie.
Those are the lands that Fouad Ajami described as “I against my brother; my brother and I against out cousin; my cousin, my brother and I against the stranger”. I’ve been reading Benny Morris’ “1948: The First Arab-Israeli War” lately and its been illustrative. Those oppressed Arabs in Palestine were sure the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, TransJordan, and Iraq were coming to save them. In actuality, their brother Arabs were coming to get themselves some Palestinian pie.
This is Obama’s Vietnam.
This thing has been a cluster Fu$k from the day one. France and Italy wanted to secure their cheap energy and Khadafy became unstable.
Enter the US, arm twisted by their “US allies.” ^The slogan “no blood for oil” couldn’t be any more apt than this situation. The EU nations are desperate to continue their supply of oil and natural gas. They are willing to go to war for it and… we, the US, owe them due to the wars in Iraq and the Af.
Now tens of thousands of refugees, young men from the north African nations are landing on the shores of Italy. They have to be housed and fed and given visas to enter the EU. This is all because of energy.
The EU has made a huge mess for themselves and they expect the US to bail them out. They expect us to bomb Lybia back to the stonage and gain the oil fields in friedly hands.
I would be more than happy if we turned our boats around and told the EU to figure it out themselves as they have told us so many times.