If you missed the speech, it was being broadcast on Youtube live as well as all news stations (that I know of) and even internationally. Here is PBS's post on Youtube, it was a short 26 mins:
You can get the full transcript here:
Most of the analysts after the speech seemed to conclude he made a good case for Americans to support the cause. Although I don't like showing highlights because I want people to read or watch the whole speech, there were several points that stood out to me.
(You can read my opinion on Libyan intervention (and what I want to see from U.S. foreign policy) here.)
He established actions his administration had taken before the invasion:
We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qadhafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Gadhafi's regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qadhafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.
Next, he pointed out the conditions on the ground:
Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. ...Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misrata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed and apartment buildings were reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.
As Qaddafi advanced to Beghazi, full of 700,000 people opposed to the dictator, genocide was bound to occur. In the face of this, military action became the appropriate response:
We knew that if we wanted - if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world...... [When speaking of international action] To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
He then called out the anti-interventionist and directly responded to them:
It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
He believed that passing UN resolutions that didn't do much were just "empty words" and would have led to a massacre. He also continued by addressing the argument of those that say military action should expand, directly calling such a move a "mistake."
The President ended his speech, by what most consider, the new "Obama Doctrine." This will be the basis for a consistent policy in dealing with these uprisings, every other president for the past 30 years has established a doctrine, here is what he said:
I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests....There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security; and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
This will now be the basis for his administrations doctrine so long as he is president. You can see a list of previous doctrines here all the way back to Reagan. One key component of the doctrine that differs from the Bush Doctrine is that, U.S. action can not be alone. The Bust Doctrine established, that the American government will work alone if it has to to attack the enemies of the nation, Obama's stands in direct contrast to than.
To those opposing Libyan intervention because of your concerns for the U.S. you need not worry since our involvement will begin to decrease (militarily). To those who don't care about the U.S. and oppose intervention, who are you to stop this intervention when the Libyan people were calling for action to save their lives? The coalition reduced the stress on the U.S. and helped stop massive killing. It would have also told Arab leaders that with enough force, they can stay in power. The Obama doctrine is not perfect, and there are some key areas that it doesn't meet up with my expectations for U.S. foreign policy, however, it is a welcome change.
No comments:
Post a Comment