Obama's reassuring hypocrisy on Libya
The president is doing the right thing in the Middle East — and saying the opposite

And people say George W. Bush lied about Iraq!
President Obama’s campaign in Libya may be the most deceptively sold U.S. military policy since Franklin Roosevelt’s “all aid short of war” policy in World War II.
In his speech to the nation Monday night, the President Obama described a military action in Libya where:
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
- The main U.S. military commitment has already ended
- NATO is relieving the U.S. of operational responsibility
- The U.S. mission is limited to protecting civilian populations
- The U.S. goal is strictly humanitarian
- And the U.S. takes no view about Libya’s future government beyond a vague preference that Moammar Gadhafi move on
As described, this is a preposterous policy. Fortunately, the president is giving every sign of not believing a word of it.
The Libyan war takes the Bush frailty to extremes: The explanations are laughable on their face — but the policy seems astute and promising.
In fact, the U.S. commitment continues, and will likely enlarge. And despite the president’s statement that no U.S. “ground forces” will enter Libya, does anybody doubt that — as in Afghanistan in 2001 — U.S. personnel are present “on the ground”?
Any large-scale NATO operation is inescapably U.S.-led. The NATO commander in charge of the Libyan operation is a Canadian three-star general. With all due respect to the heroic military traditions of my native land, it is not very likely that a Canadian three-star is running a war involving large U.S., French, and British military assets.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
We all know that the U.S. mission is aimed at the overthrow of Gadhafi. The U.S. is engaged in sophisticated propaganda operations urging Gadhafi's troops to turn on him. And it’s reported that the U.S. is negotiating with Gadhafi about a secure exit from Libya.
The U.S. mission is as deeply concerned with European energy security as with Libya's unfolding humanitarian crisis. Critics correctly point out that the U.S. has managed to ignore many other humanitarian crises — and is, in fact, ignoring one right now in Ivory Coast. This particular crisis is occurring in a country from which NATO ally Italy buys more than one-fifth of its net oil imports, and in which Britain has very large investments. We are not going to war for oil. But we very rarely go to war without oil.
And of course, the Obama administration is obviously very concerned about unintentionally bringing Islamic radicals to power in Libya. Unlike the Sarkozy government, the Obama administration has not recognized the rebels as the legitimate government of the country. It is instead proposing a conference at which various factions will be present — and at which Western governments will have more scope to pick and choose, as happened in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban. By concentrating on the air war, and providing only limited help to the rebels on the ground, the Obama administration keeps the rebels weak and maximizes NATO’s relative sway over Libya���s future.
Henry Kissinger used to contrast the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations: “Under Clinton, the explanations were much better than the policies; under Bush, the policies were always much better than the explanations.”
The Libyan war takes the Bush frailty to extremes: The explanations are laughable on their face — but the policy seems astute and promising.
Oscar Wilde has one of his characters remark to another: “I hope you have not been leading a double life, pretending to be wicked and being really good all the time. That would be hypocrisy.” In that sense, the contrast between this president’s actions in Libya and his justifications is hypocrisy at its most shameless — and most welcome.
-
Does ketchup belong on a hot dog and more May 12 editorial cartoons
Cartoons Monday's cartoons feature Pope Leo XIV, Newark airport, and Donald Trump's meme coin
-
Make mine a soju and tonic: the rise of Korea's favourite spirit
The Week Recommends The rice-based drink can replace gin or vodka in traditional cocktails for a refreshing twist on the classics
-
The full moon calendar for every month
In depth When to see the lunar phenomenon every month
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy