Regime Change is the Issue in Libya. Why Doesn’t Obama Understand That?

Further to this item noting the differences between what David Cameron and Barack Obama are saying, a White House spokesman emails Ben Smith to say there’s no contradiction between the American insistence that this is not about regime change and Cameron’s suspicion that it’s hard to see how Gaddafi can remain in power:

This is very easily explained. We still believe that Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy to lead and must go. However the goal of this resolution is not regime change. Rather it authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing. Those two things aren’t contradictory.

Fine, the resolution may not authorise regime change but the logic of the policy surely insists upon it? Do the Americans really mean to suggest that they could live with Gaddafi remaining in power? Because that’s the logic of this statement. Achieving the resolution’s aims is only the first step because if there’s no second step then there’s every chance Gaddafi can remain in power in at least part of Libya.