Over the weekend, U.S. and allied air and naval forces launched strikes on the military assets of the regime of Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi. Last night marked the third night of air strikes and the New York Times is reporting “the military campaign to   destroy air defenses and establish a no-fly zone  over Libya has nearly accomplished its initial objectives, and the United States is moving swiftly to hand command to allies in Europe, American officials said on Monday.” The intervention came following a UN Security Council resolution on Friday that   endorsed the creation of a no-fly zone  and authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. The UN resolution came as Qaddafi forces were threatening to rout — and some fear massacre — anti-government forces that had retreated to the eastern city of Benghazi. President Obama also explained the decision to authorize force: “The core point that has to be upheld here , is that the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that when there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, when a leader that has lost legitimacy and decides to turn his military on his own people, we simply can’t stand by with empty words, we have to take some sort of action.” The sudden US intervention has proved controversial and spawned a serious debate over the nature of the mission’s objectives and the extent of US involvement that has divided foreign policy thinkers and political leaders on both sides of the aisle. While there is legitimate debate over the merits of intervention, many Republican 2012 candidates and conservative talking heads, ever desperate to attack the President and score cheap political points, are launching absurd attacks and even  critiquing him for taking action they days before supported. As Politico noted, this is a “reminder of the dearth of foreign policy experience among the main GOP contenders.”

CONTEXT:   What began as a popular uprising, similar to Egypt and Tunisia, quickly spiraled into an armed revolt following Qaddafi’s use of mercenary forces to brutally and indiscriminately suppress the protests. Just a few weeks ago, rebel forces controlled much of the country and appeared on the cusp of toppling Qaddafi. But Qaddafi rallied and launched a furious counter-attack, which forced a rebel retreat across the country. As Qaddafi’s forces approached the eastern city of Benghazi, there were growing fears of a massacre and humanitarian and refugee crisis. This prompted the Arab League to call for Western intervention. On Friday, the United Nations Security Council authorized international action in Libya by a vote of 10-0 with five countries (Brazil, Germany, Russia, China, India) choosing to abstain. Over the past three days, the U.S. fired more than 130 Tomahawk cruise missiles and launched numerous air strikes, which have prevented the fall of Benghazi and a humanitarian crisis. President Obama said yesterday that “after the initial thrust has disabled Gaddafi’s air defences… there will be a transition in which we have a range of coalition partners, who will then be participating in establishing a no-fly zone.” Yet there is some  confusion and disagreement within NATO over who will take charge of the operations from the US. The sudden nature of the intervention has also led to complaints from congress that the President did not properly consult with congress. The New York Times noted that “lawmakers from both parties argued that Mr. Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the military’s participation without Congressional approval. The president said in a letter to Congress that he had the power to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in duration and scope, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the national interest.”

END GAME?:   Intervention has led to a serious debate that has cross-cut party lines over the merits and objectives of the operation. Many fear the administration has not defined clear objectives or laid out an end game for its intervention. Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said, “I do not understand the mission  because as far as I can tell in the United States there is no mission and there are no guidelines for success.” One cause for confusion is that in the first few weeks of the uprising in Libya the Obama administration called for Qaddafi to go, but it is unclear whether rebel forces have the capability to oust Qaddafi. Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress warns, “you could have this very awkward phase emerging where Gaddafi is entrenched while there’s a rump state in eastern Libya and some but not all states in the Arab world work to isolate the regime.” This has led to fears of mission creep, where U.S. forces would escalate their intervention to ensure Qaddafi’s ouster. James Fallows of the Atlantic writes, “the  most predictable failure in modern American military policy has been the reluctance to ask, And what happens then? … After this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don’t?” Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist noted that “the  biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it’s there — the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint — there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave.” However, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on Meet the Press that the President “has a  military operation with very clear mission, and that’s what the president should do is have a clear mission and to avoid mission creep…this mission has been very carefully limited.” The Obama administration has insisted that the military intervention will be limited and has rejected sending in U.S. ground troops. President Obama said yesterday in Chile, “First of all,   I think it’s very easy to square   our military actions and our stated policies. Our military action is in support of a international mandate from the Security Council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by Colonel Qaddafi to his people. … As part of that international coalition, I authorized the United States military to work with our international partners to fulfill that mandate. Now, I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go. And we got a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy… But when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Resolution 1973, that specifically talks about humanitarian efforts. And we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.”
 
RIGHT WING NOISE:   For days, many conservative presidential hopefuls and political pundits had called for U.S. intervention in Libya, but following the international community’s action, few took to the airwaves to back the President. Politico reported,   “After  demanding for weeks that he be more decisive on Libya, not one candidate in the field of 2012 GOP hopefuls has expressed support for President Barack Obama since he began bombing the North African nation. The GOP’s presidential prospects either sharply criticized the commander-in-chief this weekend or avoided weighing in.” For those GOP hopefuls and pundits that attacked the President, the critique centered on the premise that he waited too long and shouldn’t have sought international support — apparently it is preferable to go to war without international support. Sarah Palin said she wouldn’t criticize the President while she was abroad in India, but then went on to criticize the President saying if she were there would have been “less dithering.” John Bolton said on Fox News that the Obama administration was “wrong to base its decision to use force” due to the support of the Arab League or the United Nations. HBO’s Bill Maher noted on Friday, “Republicans don’t know what to do  with this because they wanted this to happen, the no fly zone, so that’s good, but now Obama wants it so it’s bad. … Fox News today just put up a test pattern that said, ‘Please be patient while we figure out how this makes Obama the worst president ever.'”