Obama faces a challenge in defining his aims in Libya

[unhappycamper]

Obama faces a challenge in defining his aims in Libya
By Bob Drogin and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times
March 27, 2011

Reporting from Washington— Barack Obama entered the White House as a reluctant warrior, a dovish Democrat who espoused his principles at a 2002 antiwar rally: "What I am opposed to is … a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. … A war based not on reason, but on passion."

Now, as the U.S.-led bombing of Libya enters a second week, President Obama must convince an anxious public and a restive Congress that his decision to plunge America's military into the cauldron of a distant armed mission is none of those things.

So far, it is much easier to explain why America joined the conflict — as an emergency action to protect civilians — than to envision how it will end. The president has yet to clarify his long-term aims and how he plans to achieve them. Nor has he said what happens if Moammar Kadafi stays in power, as the Libyan leader has vowed, despite a no-fly zone and airstrikes against his military.

Obama will discuss his plans in Libya during a speech to the nation Monday night. In the meantime, in his weekly radio address Saturday, he said that Kadafi's attacks against civilians "must stop" and that his forces "must pull back." But he didn't outline circumstances under which the intervention would end except to say that "the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realized."

Many analysts say that, short of targeting Kadafi in a military strike, which the Obama administration says it will not do, the U.S. and its allies may face a long war of attrition.

[somone]

1. "A war based not on reason, but on passion"

'Nuf said.