Obama's Real Libya Goal: Regime Change

Obama’s Libya speech was intended to reassure voters that the U.S. was only intervening to save lives and not pushing for regime change. Unfortunately, it's just not true.

It was a good speech, but it told us nothing that we don’t know.

President Barack Obama’s intent was to reassure the nation (and, I guess, the world) that the U.S. wasn’t at “war” with Libya, but was merely anxious to save Libyan lives from a homicidal Muammar Qaddafi.

That sounds good, but is it true?

Despite fancy rhetoric, the reality is that Obama (and America’s allies and some of her enemies) want Qaddafi gone. Period. Regime change is the goal, with Qaddafi in exile in some unlovely country or, preferably, dead.

No leader is saying that outright, but that’s the hope.

Obama saying that “some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries” but not America has a hypocritical ring, if not a false one.

“As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” said Obama, as if this was ingrained policy.

Maybe in the case of Libya, but certainly not elsewhere.

The truth is that had not the Libyan people risen as one, and rebelled against Qaddafi, Obama and the rest of the world would still be dealing cordially with him, and turning a blind eye to his repressive acts.

The same goes for America’s policy towards Egypt. It was only when the anti-Hosni Mubarak elements were winning, that America put pressure on him to bail out. Until then he was a friend and ally.

Double-dealing is legitimate in international politics and diplomacy. The world accepts winners, even if it may not like them as individuals. What it will not tolerate is losers, and it discards them.

The trouble with Qaddafi is perhaps his Bedouin background. He’s not going quietly – at least not yet. Italy is said to be negotiating a way for him to flee to a country that doesn’t recognize the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, which is Qaddafi’s destination if he were to surrender or be captured.

No one wants that. Better that he be torn apart by Libyan mobs, or strung up on a lamppost as has been the fate of many failed tyrants.

On the positive side, the Libyan campaign is now internationally led by NATO, with Canadian Air Force Lt.Gen. Charlie Bouchard in command. He is a former deputy commander of NORAD.

Gen. Bouchard’s insistence that NATO forces are not taking sides in the Libyan civil war and that “our goal is to protect and help civilians and population centers under the threat of attack,” is a bit ingenuous.

Tell that to the tank crews demolished by NATO aircraft, and the exuberance of the rebels on the move towards Tripoli, who were in retreat until the “air attacks for peace” routed Qaddafi forces.

Of course we have picked sides, although Obama seems eager to distance America from what the future holds. Libya’s future hinges on what Libyans do when Qaddafi is eventually bounced.

To quote Yogi Berra, “making predictions is hard, especially when it’s about the future.” That holds with Libya and the whole Arab world which is now on the brink of rebellions, if not revolutions.

As Obama puts it, there are “democratic impulses across the Middle East.”

One hopes Obama is right, but history indicates that relatively few “revolutions” end up as democracies.

Tweet