Libya: Is The US Willing To Go Beyond Threats And Condemnations?

The other day, I was reading Caroline Glick's article, The West's Proxy War Against The Jews, and came across her critique of Obama's lack of action against Libya:

the Obama administration remains incapable of lifting a finger to prevent an Iranian proxy from taking over Bahrain or a consortium of al-Qaida terrorists from taking over Yemen. Obama refuses to take any action to help the Libyan people overthrow Gaddafi. As for Iran, Obama maintains his steadfast refusal to take any action to help the Iranian people overthrow their nuclear-proliferating, terror-supporting regime.

At the time I thought it was too bad that the article was already out of date--after all, The New York Times reported that Obama was finally taking action against Libya:

The United States began moving warships toward Libya and froze $30 billion in the country’s assets on Monday as the administration declared all options on the table in its diplomatic, economic and military campaign to drive Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from power.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration was conferring with allies about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Such a move would likely be carried out only under a mandate from the United Nations or NATO, but Mrs. Clinton’s blunt confirmation that it was under consideration was clearly intended to ratchet up the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi and his dwindling band of loyalists.

Unfortunately, I had failed to read the entire article--because it turns out that Glick was really not far off about Obama's lack of action. Jennifer Rubin points out that the same article points out how any concern that Qaddafi might have had about those warships were quickly eliminated:

But then some eager anonymous staffers couldn't resist assuring the Times that this was mostly a bluff ("officials in Washington and elsewhere said that direct military action remained unlikely, and that the moves were designed as much as anything as a warning to Colonel Qaddafi and a show of support to the protesters seeking to overthrow his government"). Thanks, guys.

Meanwhile, it seems that Great Britain is moving to take the lead in establishing a no-fly-zone over Libya, to prevent Qaddafi sending planes to shoot civilians.

And that's not all. In a statement before the House of Commons on Monday, Cameron concluded by indicating that Great Britain was going to have a role in the Middle East:

What is happening in the wider Middle East is one of those once in a generation opportunities, a moment when history turns a page. That next page is not yet written. It falls to all of us to seize this chance to fashion a better future for this region, to build a better relationship between our peoples, to make a new start.

As the inspiring Opposition leaders I met in Tahrir Square said to me last week: We now have the opportunity of achieving freedoms that you in Britain take for granted. I am determined that Britain will not let them down. And I commend this statement to the House.

Maybe Obama doesn't mind the idea of the US taking a secondary role in the Middle East in general and in terms of Libya in particular. Considering his inexperience in foreign affairs and lack of success in the region, Obama may think it a good idea to let someone else take the lead.

One problem is that the US will have less say in defending its interests in the region.
Another problem is the lack of leadership with the US taking a back seat. Though it had originally come out with strong language in condemning Qaddafi, Russia now opposes foreign intervention in Libya and will therefore not support creating a no-fly-zone.

If Obama is not willing to use those warships, the opposition in Libya had better be able to overthrow Qaddafi. As bad as it looked when Obama was silent during the 2009 protests in Iran, for the US to send out warships to Libya and then have them sitting around unused while Qaddafi regains control would be far worse.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.