Legal Commentary

U.S. to Reduce Military Role in Libya

By Jeralyn

The U.S. is going to turn over control of military operations in Libya to either a UK-France coalition or Nato, probably within days.

The Wall St. Journal says U.S. involvement in Libya show "the Obama doctrine" in action, and that it's consistent with what he said on the campaign trail in 2008. It also says it's not a position that sits well with many Republicans:

Facing off against then-fellow Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a debate for the Democratic primary, Mr. Obama said he didn't want to just end the war in Iraq. "I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place," he said.

In contrast to his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq in 2003 despite opposition from many allies and Democrats, Mr. Obama is taking pains to receive unambiguous legal authority through the United Nations, getting clear support from Arab states and then letting others—France and Britain —lead the military charge.

[More...]

Military officials confirm that Obama's intent is to keep the U.S. from taking the lead militarily:

Top military officials described the cruise-missile strikes as "the leading edge" of a multiphase campaign against Col. Gadhafi. But the officials stressed that Mr. Obama's goal was to create conditions quickly that would allow the U.S. to step back and assume largely a backup role.

As to our role going forward,

Officials described America's longer-term role as providing logistical support, such as refueling allied planes and provide intelligence from drones.

Sounds like a good position to me. The less U.S. intervention the better.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 20, 2011 (boomark / email).