The Obama administration has tried to keep a low profile in the Libyan crisis. When the shooting starts, however, it's hard for a superpower to avoid the limelight.
Having unleashed U.S. cruise missile and B-2 bomber attacks on Libya's air defenses, the administration faces incoming criticism on all sides - from Arab leaders who are getting cold feet after having initially called for a no-fly zone, and from Republicans who want to know what America's "endgame" is. Meanwhile, Muammar Gaddafi wasted no time playing the anti-American card, accusing the United States of scheming to steal Libya's oil.
Most disappointing was the criticism from Amr Moussa, secretary general of the 22-nation Arab League. The League's call for a no-fly zone only a week before was widely interpreted as a sign of political maturation; an acknowledgement that tyrants like Gaddafi pose a bigger threat to Arabs than U.S. "imperialism." After the Libyan regime made what appeared to be spurious claims about civilian casualties, however, Moussa changed his tune: "What has happened in Libya differs from the goal of imposing a no-fly zone and what we want is the protection of civilians and not bombing other civilians."
This complaint is disingenuous. Recent experience in the Balkans and Iraq shows that imposing a no-fly zone gives the appearance of forceful intervention without actually changing the reality on the ground. A flight ban could not stop Qaddafi's ground offensive, which had reached the rebel redoubt in Benghazi when the international coalition struck. In-the-nick-of-time attacks by French fighters on a convoy of tanks and mercenaries may have saved the city and prevented massive civilian casualties.
Fortunately, other Arab leaders don't appear to have gone wobbly, and a chastened Moussa appeared today in Cairo with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to reaffirm the League's commitment to the Security Council's resolution.
Meanwhile, back on the home front, Republicans who had previously criticized Obama for his reluctance to intervene in Libya are now insisting that he play Nostradamus and tell them exactly how it will all turn out. Flashing yellow warning signs was House Speaker John Boehner, who issued a portentous warning to Obama: "Before any further military commitments are made, the administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."
Well, nobody's talking about "further military commitments" - nor is our mission in Libya shrouded in mystery. The United States is part of an international coalition enforcing a humanitarian intervention authorized by the United Nations. The UN resolution permits "all necessary means" to protect Libyan civilians from a regime-sponsored massacre. It does not authorize a foreign invasion or occupation. Our job is to stop the killing, and leave the ultimate resolution of the conflict to the Libyans themselves.
This does not mean, however, that the United States and its coalition partners have to pretend to be neutral. On the contrary, there is nothing in the UN resolution that prohibits the coalition from arming and training the resistance so that it can defend itself without additional outside help. True, that could mean a prolonged civil conflict, and perhaps a military stalemate. But Gaddafi is the source of the problem, and the world should take him at his world when he declares he will either crush the rebels or die trying.
Rather than comply with the UN resolution, Gaddafi greeted the coalition air strikes with defiance and bloodcurdling threats. "We will exterminate every traitor and collaborator with America, Britain, France and the crusader coalition," he vowed over the weekend. "They shall be exterminated in Benghazi or any other place."
Given the dictator's intransigence, there's no reason for Washington be coy about favoring a regime change in Libya. President Obama previously had been clear that Gaddafi must go, but on Sunday talk shows Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, muddied the waters by broaching the possibility that he could stay.
White House officials are at pains to assure us that, having destroyed Libya's air defenses, the United States can now take a back seat to British and French efforts to enforce the no-fly zone as well as a "no-drive" zone should Gaddafi's forces resume their attacks on Benghazi and other rebel-held areas. Given lingering distrust of the United States in the Arab and Muslim world, that might make tactical sense.
What's essential, however, is to avoid half-measures against a dictator that has gone all-in. His ouster by Libya's rebels is the best way to avoid the kind of open-ended U.S. military engagement in Libya that no one wants.