<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" Okay, we&amp;#039;re familiar with the Obama drill on Libya to date: 1) Write political checks with your mouth that you have no intention of cashing with your military. 2) Keep acting like it&amp;#039;s no big thing to your presidency, because you&amp;#039;re a busy leader, and let the French take this bit in their mouth for once. 3) When all the ducks (UN, NATO, Arab League) are lined up, commit only the minimum of cutting-edge military assets to make this work, emphasizing no boots on the ground and absolutely no sense of responsibility for the aftermath \u2014 besides the usual superpower tithing. So yeah, a responsibility to protect, just no responsibility to pay the Bush-Cheney standard of 90-percent of blood and treasure. Now for the official sales pitch to the American people, line-by-line: I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform...  Translation: Although every president starts out every war address like this, I&amp;#039;m a Democrat, and so I especially need to do this. For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world&amp;#039;s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.  Translation: I know I&amp;#039;m running the world&amp;#039;s sole military superpower, and I know Libya meets the obvious minimum standards for an intervention, but remember that this has only been going on for six weeks, so don&amp;#039;t you dare label me as indecisive. Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt \u2014 two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny.  Translation: I do see some potential for a reverse-domino effect here, so understand I&amp;#039;m watching out for Egypt, too \u2014 and the other country. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant \u2014 Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world \u2014 including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.  Translation: Yeah, we remember Lockerbie, and this is most definitely some payback. Last month, Gaddafi&amp;#039;s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights...  Translation: I&amp;#039;m only doing what any decent Western leader would do. Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens...  Translation: But I take care of my own first. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime&amp;#039;s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.  Translation: There was no wobbling whatsoever. I moved carefully and deliberately, but most definitely in a straight line. I never called this guy &amp;quot;my friend&amp;quot; or any other such nonsense. I came out right away demanding that Gaddafi to step down. In the face of the world&amp;#039;s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off...  Translation: This bastard gave every indication he would kill every Libyan necessary to keep his grip on power. Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No Fly Zone to stop the regime&amp;#039;s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.  Translation: No indecision, but not exactly rushing in. When all the necessary boxes were checked, I moved ahead with no hesitation. Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.  Translation: This was my Bill Clinton moment: I either let a Rwanda-size bloodbath unfold or I did something. There&amp;#039;s no way I&amp;#039;m going to spend the decades of my post-presidency apologizing for all those deaths like Clinton still does. At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show &amp;quot;no mercy&amp;quot; to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi \u2014 a city nearly the size of Charlotte \u2014 could suffer a massacre...  Translation: Remember this part when I don&amp;#039;t do anything about government killings in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, because those numbers, while nonetheless indefensible, won&amp;#039;t rise to this potential level of killing. And, yeah, size matters. ...it was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.  Translation: A Freudian slip that reflects my presidency: I don&amp;#039;t do things because they&amp;#039;re in our national interest; I prevent things that are not in our national interest. Read my lips: Not gonna do it! If that comes as so very Bush the Elder, it&amp;#039;s because that&amp;#039;s who I&amp;#039;m channeling here \u2014 not the son. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action...  Translation: This stuff about me not keeping Congress is the loop is total bull. In this effort, the United States has not acted alone...  Translation: Again, like Bush the Elder, I know how to work a coalition. No unilateralism from this White House. To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners. 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.  Translation: Not only am I not Bill Clinton, but I pulled this off a lot faster than even those Bushie neocons could on Iraq. One frickin&amp;#039; month! Who says I can&amp;#039;t lead a superpower military? To be blunt, I&amp;#039;m kicking some real diplomatic ass here. Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America&amp;#039;s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.  Translation: This is my real doctrine: America is still the pointy end of the spear. We just don&amp;#039;t want any more of &amp;quot;America&amp;#039;s wars.&amp;quot; Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone...  Translation: Who am I kidding? It&amp;#039;s our only real military alliance. The rest is just arms sales and handholding. ...and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi&amp;#039;s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role \u2014 including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation \u2014 to our military, and to American taxpayers \u2014 will be reduced significantly.  Translation: This thing will stay within a reasonable budget, with the U.S. providing only the high-end capabilities that no one else can mount. That&amp;#039;s how it&amp;#039;s supposed to work. So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.  Translation: Okay, nobody actually said that, because it would be stupid beyond belief to doubt our basic military capabilities. That&amp;#039;s just me getting as close to chest thumping as I can get on this, because I really know that what people doubted was actually my capacity to order this operation. That is not to say that our work is complete...  Translation: No rose-colored-glasses on this. I understand wars are followed by postwars \u2014 unlike the clowns who preceded us. ...because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.  Translation: That is as close as I&amp;#039;ll come to calling it &amp;quot;regime change.&amp;quot; Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and \u2014 more importantly \u2014 a task for the Libyan people themselves.  Translation: That is as close as I&amp;#039;ll come to calling it &amp;quot;nation building,&amp;quot; but what I just described is exactly that: nation building. Reducing it to a &amp;quot;task&amp;quot; is rhetorical nonsense, of course, but do you really want to hear about that now? Let&amp;#039;s burn that bridge when we get to it. In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya...  Translation: And now to take on my pinhead critics! It is 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&amp;#039;s right...  Translation: I don&amp;#039;t buy the slippery slope on this one. Even I \u2014 careful diplomat that I am \u2014 find this one seriously weak-ass argument. In this particular country \u2014 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 Gaddafi&amp;#039;s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.  Translation: I saw low-hanging fruit and figured the pain of acting would be less worse than the ignominy of inaction. And yes, I&amp;#039;m actually that calculating. To brush aside America&amp;#039;s responsibility as a leader and \u2014 more profoundly \u2014 our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.  Translation: Yeah, despite all the rumors out there, I am an American. Sorry, Donald. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.  Translation: Again, I am not Bill Clinton. Okay, I easily could be, but Hillary wouldn&amp;#039;t let me. Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya&amp;#039;s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful \u2014 yet fragile \u2014 transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.  Translation: Okay, so I read a few op-eds. I can take a hint. Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.... If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.  Translation: I actually cribbed that bit from George H.W. Bush&amp;#039;s explanation for why he didn&amp;#039;t go into Baghdad in Desert Storm. So this and the previous humanitarian bits put me somewhere between Old Man Bush and Bill Clinton. I read a lot of books about past presidents, and this is my comfort zone. Sorry. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq&amp;#039;s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.  Translation: Did I mention that I&amp;#039;m not George W. Bush? I mean, isn&amp;#039;t this exactly why you voted for me? For me instead of John McCain? As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do \u2014 and will do \u2014 is support the aspirations of the Libyan people...  Translation: But anybody who&amp;#039;s paying close enough attention knows I&amp;#039;m not shy about selling arms. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.  Translation: So we&amp;#039;re going to run guns to the rebels like crazy, and let them fight this thing out \u2014 no matter what it takes. Reagan would be proud, on multiple levels. Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America&amp;#039;s military power, and America&amp;#039;s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency...  Translation: Now comes the boring part where I drone on, trying to dress this up in some larger, more meaningful way. But frankly, this is all boilerplate hammered out by staffers. At this point, you&amp;#039;ve stopped listening because I&amp;#039;ve said everything I&amp;#039;m going to say on Libya and you know I&amp;#039;ve got nothing to say about the Saudis. So let&amp;#039;s leave it at this: bad man, easy target, too much possible innocent blood, no U.S. boots on the ground, and no serious responsibility to rebuild afterward. It&amp;#039;s what you can stand right now, and it&amp;#039;s what I&amp;#039;m comfortable dealing right now. It&amp;#039;s as simple as that, people. God bless America. Esquire contributing editor Thomas P.M. Barnett is the author of Great Powers: America and the World After Bush. For his weekly video bulletins for Wikistrat, click here. PLUS: The Obama Doctrine Emerges on Libya \u2014 and the Gibbs One, Too &amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt; "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a9691/obama-libya-speech-5473207/>