Doctrine for Libya: Not Carved in Stone
By THOM SHANKER and HELENE COOPER
NYT
WASHINGTON — So, is there an Obama doctrine?
In laying out his justification for the American-led assault on Libya on Monday night, the president offered the most detailed portrait of when he might commit the country’s military might in a tumultuous world.
He would take action, he said, if vital national security interests were at stake. He would consider it if economic interests were threatened, or if there was a humanitarian crisis so deep it could not be ignored. But in those two instances, he would hesitate unless there was international participation, and the cost was not too high.
But these conditions seemed tailor made for Libya, and the president seemed to provide little guidance for what position he would take in other, more vital nations in the region now roiled by an “Arab Spring” of popular uprising. Nor did Mr. Obama’s speech on Monday shed light on whether the president would use force in other trouble spots.
(More here.)
NYT
WASHINGTON — So, is there an Obama doctrine?
In laying out his justification for the American-led assault on Libya on Monday night, the president offered the most detailed portrait of when he might commit the country’s military might in a tumultuous world.
He would take action, he said, if vital national security interests were at stake. He would consider it if economic interests were threatened, or if there was a humanitarian crisis so deep it could not be ignored. But in those two instances, he would hesitate unless there was international participation, and the cost was not too high.
But these conditions seemed tailor made for Libya, and the president seemed to provide little guidance for what position he would take in other, more vital nations in the region now roiled by an “Arab Spring” of popular uprising. Nor did Mr. Obama’s speech on Monday shed light on whether the president would use force in other trouble spots.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home