Libya has been off radar here for a week or more. Meanwhile it appears that our "humanitarian intervention" has morphed quite quickly into a stated goal of regime change.
This is what Obama said in his Libya speech late last month. Full text of the speech from 28 March 2011 may be viewed at Politico.
Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
From The Telegraph 16 April we have this under the headline:
"The bombing continues until Gaddafi goes"
The following is from Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy:
...under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force...
However, they tell us:
... so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. For that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good.
Gosh, who could have predicted? With a presidential finding and CIA involvement this should come as no surprise. One must wonder who is on the shortlist to replace Gaddafi. It's not as though we've never done this stuff before.
It's so easy to become involved and much more difficult to leave.
Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for the heads up on this story.