 | |
Jakya Kikwete, President of Tanzania, and Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi at the 12th African Union Summit in 2009 (photo credits: public domain). |
In yesterday’s NY Times, David Sanger and Thom Shanker deftly report the current discord in Washington over the available options in military intervention in Libya:
WASHINGTON — Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi grow more complicated by the day — for both the White House and Republicans.
President Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia’s prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi further by talking about “a range of potential options, including potential military options” against the embattled Libyan leader.
Despite Mr. Obama’s statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to American intervention in Libya.
Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region — as well as some leaders — have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment