Congressional supporters and opponents of U.S. military intervention in Libya on Capitol Hill are calling on President Obama to clearly define U.S. interests in the Arab country as well as the type of air strikes and other options the administration is pushing in an attempt to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi from prevailing against rebel forces.
In hearings Thursday, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Sens. John Kerry (D-Ma) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), respectively, expressed opposite views on imposing a no-fly zone in Libya. Kerry views it as vital to the success of opposition forces; Lugar thinks it would be too costly. But both want the President to step in and use the bully pulpit to clearly articulate his views on the increasingly violent clash.
Kerry reiterated his wholehearted support for a no-fly zone and U.S. intervention as soon as possible, arguing that waiting days or even hours longer could squander a historic opportunity to shape burgeoning democracies in the Middle East. Doing nothing, could embolden Qaddafi and other Middle East leaders facing similar uprisings, and Qaddafi could even return to terrorism and begin aiding terrorist groups in the region, he said.
“We have a new opportunity to redefine [our relationships in the Middle East] in a positive way,” he said. “If that’s not in our national interest, then I don’t know what is.”
Kerry then said he think it’s important for the President and the administration to be defining our positions and the stakes “because the American people don’t have a very good sense of that.”
“Some of our officials are not articulating our interest in a very clear way and I think that shortchanges the opportunities at this moment,” he said.
Lugar was equally passionate in his arguments against unilateral U.S. military intervention in Libya and also said Congress must pass a formal declaration of war if the Obama administration decides to authorize the use of force.
“Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people,” Lugar said at the beginning of the panel’s Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. “But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.”
By the end of the hearing, Lugar too, was calling on the President to spell out what he wants to do in Libya and how he plans to carry it out.
“There’s a need for the President to attempt to articulate more clearly why Libya has importance to us in terms of our national interests or our national aspirations,” he concluded.
Lugar also implored Burns to seek Arab financing for any U.S. military action in Libya, an idea Burns said was under consideration. But Lugar then asked whether Obama had any plans to outline his Libyan plans to the public.
“The president has not spoken directly to the United States’ interests in Libya,” Lugar said. “Does the president plan to spell out what are our interests in Libya that would justify the used of armed forces?”
The debate over military intervention in Libya comes at a time of turmoil, both domestically and internationally. It is taking place at the same time Republicans and Democrats are engaged in a brutal spending battle, and Lugar repeatedly asked how the U.S. would pay for such action in Libya, suggesting that Arab countries pay for at least a portion of our military costs there.
The hearing’s sole witness was Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, who testified that U.S. interests in the opposition forces prevailing are manifold but not without serious risks and pitfalls. First, the U.S. would like to help avert a “humanitarian catastrophe,” and the brutal massacre of thousands of Libyan citizens, Burns said. And, if Qaddafi is not stopped, there’s a real risk he could return to fomenting violence and terrorism against the United States and its allies and other countries.
“it’s a moment of enormous promise, a moment of great possibility for American policies … that offers a repudiation of al Qaeda,” Burns said. “But it is also a moment of considerable risk … helping [nascent democracies in the Middle East] get it right is as important of a challenge for foreign policy as any we’ve faced.”
Burns declined to specify exactly what terms the U.S. is seeking as the United Nation’s Security Council negotiates and votes on a resolution that would authorize a no-fly zone and other options. The vote could come as early as 3:30 ET, according to a BBC report.
“Among the options being discussed today are measures that include a no-fly zone but also go beyond that to protect civilians,” said Burns.
When pressed, Burns said only: “I don’t know what the Security Council is gong to ultimately produce. … We’re working hard to produce a serious resolution and introduce it quickly considering the situation on the ground.”
He also noted that the U.S. would not act unilaterally and is seeking active Arab partnerships and “those discussions have begun.”
Kerry didn’t mention the no-fly zone in his opening statement. He predicted that “the will of the Libyan people will, in my judgment, prevail,” contradicting last week’s controversial testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said Qaddafi would win out in the end if left unchecked.
Kerry also focused on America’s dependence on foreign oil and said it has led to a misguided foreign policy in the Middle East.
“We had relationships that focused on leaders rather than people and that’s part of the energy dependency we are locked into,” he said. “We cannot continue to see the Middle East in the context of 9/11. We must see it in the context of 2011.”
As evidence by the conflict between the two most senior members of the panel, the skepticism and support did fall along partisan lines.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) demanded to know whether or not the administration believes congressional approval is necessary to intervene militarily in Libya.
“I can’t give you a yes-no answer,” Burns said, noting that he would get back to Corker on that important question.
Kerry later said the U.S. did not declare war before taking action in Kosovo or before President Reagan sent cruise missiles into Qaddafi’s palace in 1986.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) grilled Burns the most intensely.
“When is the [UN Security Council] resolution going to happen?” he asked. “After the bloodbath or in the middle of the bloodbath?”
