Max Boot: Obama's Step Forward on LibyaRoundup: Historians' Take
Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is completing a history of guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
It took nearly four months, but last week the Obama administration finally did the right thing: It recognized the National Transitional Council as the rightful government of Libya. That will allow the rebels to tap into billions of dollars in frozen Libyan government accounts in the U.S. Access to those funds is crucial not only for furthering the campaign to topple Moammar Gadhafi, but also for constructing a working government in Benghazi that can eventually be expanded to the rest of the country.
Yet the question remains: What took so long? Some two dozen countries—ranging from France to Qatar—had already extended diplomatic recognition to the rebels by the time that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. was joining their ranks. Unfortunately, this tardiness is symptomatic of the administration's conduct of the entire war effort and exemplifies President Obama's puzzling "lead from behind" doctrine.
The administration, recall, did not agree to take military action until March 17, more than a month after the rebellion against Gadhafi had begun. For weeks rebel representatives had been pleading for Western help in the form of a "no-fly zone" to stop murderous attacks by Gadhafi's aircraft. Mr. Obama ignored those entreaties, allowing Gadhafi to regain his footing. Only when the revolt was in danger of being extinguished—with the Libyan army poised on the outskirts of Benghazi—did Mr. Obama finally support Britain and France in calling for action at the United Nations.
The U.N. Security Council passed an open-ended resolution allowing member states to take "all necessary measures . . . to protect civilians" and "to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people." The only step that was forbidden was the dispatch of "a foreign occupation force." Mr. Obama could easily have interpreted Resolution 1973 as a blank check for Gadhafi's removal—something he has called for repeatedly. Instead he has insisted on the narrowest possible interpretation, with the U.S. military playing the smallest possible role in its implementation.
Many snorted in disbelief when Mr. Obama later claimed that American action in Libya does not meet the definition of "hostilities" in the War Powers Act—and hence does not have to be authorized by Congress. But this is such a minimalist war effort that one can almost see the president's point...
comments powered by Disqus
- Snopes debunks slavery Internet meme
- Revamped Chinese History Journal Welcomes Hard-Line Writers
- Poll: 3 Out of 5 Texan Trump Supporters Want Secession if Hillary Clinton Is Elected
- The Psychiatric Question: Is It Fair to Analyze Donald Trump From Afar?
- Minorities still feel Eugene, Oregon’s historical link to the Ku Klux Klan
- Ernst Nolte, Historian Whose Views on Hitler Caused an Uproar, Dies at 93
- Japan should give formal apology for wartime aggression, says historian
- Historian Benjamin Madley says what whites did to Indians in the 19th century in California was genocide.
- Kevin Baker says America needs to bring back political machines
- Covell Meyskens uses his blog to show what life was like under Mao. (Interview)