It is now less than a month since Barack Obama's March 28 speech in which he outlined the reasons for US intervention in Libya and the limitations of that intervention. That month seems an eternity and in its course support for American involvement has declined from 50% in March to 39% according to a New York Times CBS poll.
The decline in support for the involvement in Libya does not come as a surprise. The failure to secure a quick decision has dampened enthusiasm, but the original support levels were deceiving to begin with, because they came from contradictory sources.
The idealists who believe that the United States would have betrayed its ideals and principles had it not intervened, were happy to claim Obama as their own when he enunciated similar principles in the March address. But realists also had something to cheer about as Obama promised them a brief involvement, without ground forces, as part of a broad coalition where the US would quickly shed the leadership role and bestow it upon NATO. It should have been clear from the outset that Obama would not be able to satisfy both sides, and in retrospect, he has succeeded in disappointing both.
The realists are disappointed since they already discern elements of mission-creep bypassing the limitations that Obama imposed in his address, due to the inability to achieve the unstated mission of removing Muammar Qaddafi.
Now the government has authorized the use of drones. The realists' sensitive ears have picked up the French, British and Italian pledge to send in advisors which carries the distasteful echo of American involvement in Vietnam. The Los Angeles Times, normally an ally of Obama, urged the administration in a recent editorial to scale down its goals in Libya and content itself with a political solution:
The United States is fighting two other wars at the moment, both of which have proved long and frustrating, and there's little appetite for a third. American resources are limited, and a compelling case has not been made. Let's not get sucked in any further.
The idealists are chagrined as well. Qaddafi has remained in power and the United States and Western European countries who promised a great deal are not willing to put in that extra effort to finish off the Libyan dictator. In this manner they appear to be turning their backs on the Libyans who dared revolt against the tyranny.
The humanitarian goals of the original mission are being vitiated by the protracted bloodshed. Some of the idealists, like the realists, savored the fact that this mission was being run by a coalition and under the aegis of the UN resolution.This seemed to constitute a sure fire recipe for success.
But this too has been disappointing. The UN mandate has imposed limitations and the countries that abstained are pushing back against any attempt to read into the resolution more than its literal text. NATO has shown itself incapable of serving as a substitute for the Americans and while some people may relish this wake-up call for the Europeans, that may prove helpful in the future and not in the present.
The substitutes for the use of ground forces have not produced a decision. Qaddafi has interspersed his artillery and missile launchers amongst the civilian population, neutralizing NATO's air superiority for fear of harming civilians. Nor have the vaunted economic sanctions produced their effect. Qaddafi has proved equally adept at camouflaging his resources and repatriating them to Libya at the start of the fighting. The compliance of many countries with the UN sanctions has been spotty and the U.S. Treasury Department has sent emissaries to try to whip them into line.
There is no doubt that the hesitant American response to Syria (including the ludicrous comment by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praising Bashar Assad as a reformer) has reinforced criticism from both directions. The realists argue that just as the United States remained passive with regards to Syriam it should have behaved the same way regarding Libya.
In contrast, amongst the idealists the argument is reversed. The position adopted by the United States in Libya requires a firm response to the atrocities perpetrated by the Damascus regime as well.
The Republicans are attacking Obama from all directions. Senator John McCain flew into Benghazi and embraced the insurgents as heroes. From the opposite direction, Representative Michele Bachman is doubtful about the entire enterprise. Former Governor Mitt Romney wants Obama to level with the American people.
Obama cannot take solace in the fact that Republican spokespersons ostensibly contradict each other because the Republicans do not have a candidate. What is worse for him is that the common denominator of the attacks identifies Obama as a person without a clear and decisive policy, portrays Obama as a person incapable of formulating one.
The complaints about Obama that preceded the Afghanistan surge were that he was a ditherer and they have resurfaced. He is criticized as a president who cannot make a decision until he is compelled to by the force of events and by that time the moment of opportunity has passed.
What had formerly been regarded as a strong point - Obama's ability to clinically and academically dissect a problem from all angles - is increasingly being considered a weak point. A recent op-ed in the Daily Beast quoted the Council on Foreign Affairs' Leslie Gelb : “There is one man in this administration who debates himself.” That man is no other than President Obama.