Obama pourra-t-il compter sur une intervention plus "sentie" de l'OTAN?
"The war that tugged the U.S. and its allies into Libya is in its fourth month. NATO warplanes have flown more than 11,500 sorties against Moammar Gadhafi's regime.
Result so far: Nothing definitive. Gadhafi is nominally still in power. The rebels are still rebelling. And the U.S. so far has spent hundreds of millions to prop up a NATO alliance that Defense Secretary Robert Gates says isn't fully invested in its mission.
This stalemate isn't the swift military success that President Barack Obama anticipated when he sent U.S. forces into action in March. He said then that he wanted to prevent what he feared would be a mass slaughter in Libya. He didn't ask for congressional approval.
Flash forward three months: House Speaker John Boehner and many members of Congress from both parties argue that U.S. involvement in NATO's campaign violates the War Powers Act. They say Obama needs congressional permission to continue the war. Obama argues he doesn't need that OK because the U.S. plays only a support role and no U.S. military personnel are directly in harm's way. He's arguing — unconvincingly — that Libya is not a war.
Congress holds a trump card: money. Later this week, the House could vote on a measure that would cut off U.S. funding for NATO's mission in Libya.
We have not supported NATO's campaign because Obama has not offered a persuasive rationale for American intervention, a clear mission, or an exit strategy. We're wary of a protracted, expensive campaign when there is no vital U.S. security interest at stake."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-libya-20110620,0,5102700.story
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire