Barack Obama last night justified the U.S. intervention in Libya for humanitarian and national interests, in a speech to the nation in which he warned that air strikes would not seek the relief of Muammar Gaddafi and is not ruled out that this afternoon fall. The U.S. president, left and right criticized the confusion of the Libyan mission and explained his delay in, he outlined what may be his doctrine against the wave of riots in the Arab world that began in January: respect for the processes but without sacrificing internal influence; preference for multilateralism (cited Spain among the allies in Libya) and the defense of universal values.
Under this doctrine, values and interests are not necessarily contradictory. In exceptional circumstances, and always in collaboration with other partners, the defense of universal values can lead to bombing a country but this does not threaten U.S. security. UU. Washington, the president said in a speech that develops the ideas of acceptance speech by Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, reserves the right to act unilaterally when threatened "their core interests." Obama's speech offered an articulated justification for military intervention, but the president was far less clear about the future of Libya.
"Where do we go now? What if there is a stalemate? What if within six months Qaddafi remains in power? What happens if he goes next? "He asked on CNN David Gergen, a veteran counselor Democratic and Republican presidents. In an editorial Tuesday, The New York Times praised Obama's argument in defense of the intervention but regretted that it had been "too slow to explain its decision or its long-term strategy, the Congress and the American people ".
In The Washington Post, the essayist Robert Kagan, seconded Iraq during the years of neoconservative group, is full of praise to the president. According to Kagan, Obama" stood in the great tradition of American presidents who understand the special role America has in the world. "refused to fund the so-called realistic approach, praised American exceptionalism, spoke of universal values and insisted that American power should be used, when necessary, to defend these values," Kagan writes, which speaks of a "discourse kennedyano." Ten days after the first missiles and bombs from the U.S.
and its allies began to fall on Libya, Obama finally gave explanations to a nation weary from a decade of wars in Muslim countries and restless intervention by the mission and duration are undefined. Since the National Defense University in Washington, the president addressed the country when in the Middle East and other crisis-burst in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, potentially more dangerous to U.S.
interests. UU. "Every situation is unique," recalled Denis McDonough afternoon, deputy national security to deny that the intervention in Libya a precedent for other countries. "America will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of change (in the Arab world)," said Obama. "Only the people of the region can.
But we can make a difference. " The president insisted that his country's role in Libya will be "limited." The test, he said, is that tomorrow will hand over control to NATO's mission. United States will have "a secondary role," he added, reducing costs and risks to the superpower. Earnestly didactic, Obama spent much of the speech to justify intervention.
Brandished two reasons. First, the humanitarian. "We were facing the prospect of a horrific scale violence. We had a unique ability to stop violence" he said. "In these circumstances disregard the responsibility of America as a leader and, more profoundly, as human beings, would have been a betrayal of what we are." EE.
UU. had to act and could do a combination of factors not given to other countries with repressive governments. "I refused to wait to see pictures of the massacre and mass graves to act," he said, with the massacres in Rwanda and Srberenica, which Washington and its European allies did not prevent, in the mind.
But the president also appealed to the national interest to justify the bombing: whether Gaddafi had committed, and hinted he would do a killing in Benghazi, the capital of rebel, the humanitarian crisis could have been destabilizing the fragile Tunisia and Egypt, have confounded the ONUy would have undermined the democratic impulse in the region.
The president tried to answer one of the paradoxes of the mission covered by resolution 1973 of the Security Council of the UN: the goal is not to overthrow Qaddafi but only to protect civilians. Obama said the United States. UU. promote regime change, but by peaceful means. An intervention to relieve the Libyan colonel, he added, would split the coalition, would force an intervention on the ground, and, ultimately, lead to a long and bloody war like Iraq.
Since the beginning of the Arab riots, EE. UU. has balance between the defense of democracy and the fear of instability. In Libya, Obama has tried to avoid the delay of Bill Clinton before the killings in the Balkans and Africa and the imperial arrogance of George W. Bush in Iraq. The president launched the intervention of Libya with the blessing of the Security Council of the UN, but with minimal consultation with Congress.
The day the bombing started I was in Brazil. "The president should have delivered this speech a few days ago," he said in a debate in the laboratory of ideas American Enterprise Institute, Kenneth Pollack, an expert in the Middle East more heard in Washington. "I see a stable output to the situation in Libya when Qaddafi remains in power," said Pollack.
Congress felt ignored by the White House, even though Congress does not declare war since the forties. In the Libyan case, despite the criticisms as a candidate went to George W. Bush, Obama confirms the trend towards concentration of presidential power in recent decades. Michael O'Hanlon, an expert on Middle East think tank Brookings Institution, said in that debate that "there are possibilities that in the next week or next be necessary escalation" in Libya.
A climbing, according to O'Hanlon, could force the allies to arm the rebels, although resolution 1970 UN Security Council, prior to authorizing armed intervention, forbids it. U force to reinforce them with some kind of secret mission, but Obama insists he will not send troops. In the same debate, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the ideologists of the invasion of Iraq, said he could be the case that the rebel offensive had so much success in the coming days, the allies are facing "a situation post-Qaddafi." He lamented that Washington is moving to meet and collaborate with the Libyan opposition.
He knows what he's talking. The Bush administration planned poorly the day after Saddam Hussein and the United States paid dearly. 
Under this doctrine, values and interests are not necessarily contradictory. In exceptional circumstances, and always in collaboration with other partners, the defense of universal values can lead to bombing a country but this does not threaten U.S. security. UU. Washington, the president said in a speech that develops the ideas of acceptance speech by Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, reserves the right to act unilaterally when threatened "their core interests." Obama's speech offered an articulated justification for military intervention, but the president was far less clear about the future of Libya.
"Where do we go now? What if there is a stalemate? What if within six months Qaddafi remains in power? What happens if he goes next? "He asked on CNN David Gergen, a veteran counselor Democratic and Republican presidents. In an editorial Tuesday, The New York Times praised Obama's argument in defense of the intervention but regretted that it had been "too slow to explain its decision or its long-term strategy, the Congress and the American people ".
In The Washington Post, the essayist Robert Kagan, seconded Iraq during the years of neoconservative group, is full of praise to the president. According to Kagan, Obama" stood in the great tradition of American presidents who understand the special role America has in the world. "refused to fund the so-called realistic approach, praised American exceptionalism, spoke of universal values and insisted that American power should be used, when necessary, to defend these values," Kagan writes, which speaks of a "discourse kennedyano." Ten days after the first missiles and bombs from the U.S.
and its allies began to fall on Libya, Obama finally gave explanations to a nation weary from a decade of wars in Muslim countries and restless intervention by the mission and duration are undefined. Since the National Defense University in Washington, the president addressed the country when in the Middle East and other crisis-burst in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, potentially more dangerous to U.S.
interests. UU. "Every situation is unique," recalled Denis McDonough afternoon, deputy national security to deny that the intervention in Libya a precedent for other countries. "America will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of change (in the Arab world)," said Obama. "Only the people of the region can.
But we can make a difference. " The president insisted that his country's role in Libya will be "limited." The test, he said, is that tomorrow will hand over control to NATO's mission. United States will have "a secondary role," he added, reducing costs and risks to the superpower. Earnestly didactic, Obama spent much of the speech to justify intervention.
Brandished two reasons. First, the humanitarian. "We were facing the prospect of a horrific scale violence. We had a unique ability to stop violence" he said. "In these circumstances disregard the responsibility of America as a leader and, more profoundly, as human beings, would have been a betrayal of what we are." EE.
UU. had to act and could do a combination of factors not given to other countries with repressive governments. "I refused to wait to see pictures of the massacre and mass graves to act," he said, with the massacres in Rwanda and Srberenica, which Washington and its European allies did not prevent, in the mind.
But the president also appealed to the national interest to justify the bombing: whether Gaddafi had committed, and hinted he would do a killing in Benghazi, the capital of rebel, the humanitarian crisis could have been destabilizing the fragile Tunisia and Egypt, have confounded the ONUy would have undermined the democratic impulse in the region.
The president tried to answer one of the paradoxes of the mission covered by resolution 1973 of the Security Council of the UN: the goal is not to overthrow Qaddafi but only to protect civilians. Obama said the United States. UU. promote regime change, but by peaceful means. An intervention to relieve the Libyan colonel, he added, would split the coalition, would force an intervention on the ground, and, ultimately, lead to a long and bloody war like Iraq.
Since the beginning of the Arab riots, EE. UU. has balance between the defense of democracy and the fear of instability. In Libya, Obama has tried to avoid the delay of Bill Clinton before the killings in the Balkans and Africa and the imperial arrogance of George W. Bush in Iraq. The president launched the intervention of Libya with the blessing of the Security Council of the UN, but with minimal consultation with Congress.
The day the bombing started I was in Brazil. "The president should have delivered this speech a few days ago," he said in a debate in the laboratory of ideas American Enterprise Institute, Kenneth Pollack, an expert in the Middle East more heard in Washington. "I see a stable output to the situation in Libya when Qaddafi remains in power," said Pollack.
Congress felt ignored by the White House, even though Congress does not declare war since the forties. In the Libyan case, despite the criticisms as a candidate went to George W. Bush, Obama confirms the trend towards concentration of presidential power in recent decades. Michael O'Hanlon, an expert on Middle East think tank Brookings Institution, said in that debate that "there are possibilities that in the next week or next be necessary escalation" in Libya.
A climbing, according to O'Hanlon, could force the allies to arm the rebels, although resolution 1970 UN Security Council, prior to authorizing armed intervention, forbids it. U force to reinforce them with some kind of secret mission, but Obama insists he will not send troops. In the same debate, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the ideologists of the invasion of Iraq, said he could be the case that the rebel offensive had so much success in the coming days, the allies are facing "a situation post-Qaddafi." He lamented that Washington is moving to meet and collaborate with the Libyan opposition.
He knows what he's talking. The Bush administration planned poorly the day after Saddam Hussein and the United States paid dearly.
- AP Fact Checks Barack Obama's Libya Speech (29/03/2011)
- Saighdiúirí Shasana ag tabhairt ceannasaíochta don ceannairc i Libia (26/03/2011)
- The Obama goes to Latin America Carnival of Latin America and the Caribbean (21/03/2011)
- Did Socialists Choose Democrat's VP Candidate? ~ "...Barack Obama was promoted to the U.S. presidency, by an alliance of several Marxist groups..." (via ~ The GUNNY "G" BLOG & E-MAIL ~) (29/03/2011)
- President Barack Obama rocks an iPad, still keeps BlackBerry in tow (29/03/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment