Barack obama

Sarkozy’s game

I’m hearing more reports about the rather peculiar behaviour of Nicholas Sarkozy, and how he is playing the Libya campaign thus far. Obama wants to hand over leadership of this mission quick. He was never really into it, but the US Navy was overwhelmingly the best placed to do the first phase of the mission (ie, fire Tomahawks into 20 Libyan targets). The Tomahawk team constituted 11 US ships and submarines, plus one British submarine. Anything other than American leadership would have been a joke. Phase Two is to take out Gaddafi’s surface-to-air missiles as soon as he dares to move them. Obama wants to hand over the baton to

The allies converge on Gaddafi

George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Marr show this morning to introduce the Pledge of his Budget magic trick. But Marr and his viewers wanted talk about the show of military strength over Libya. Osborne reiterated that the government is committed to enforcing the UN Resolution and had no plans to deploy ground troops at this stage. He refused to rule out the use of British ground forces in the future. Privately, officials are trying to dispel the perception that the UN Resolution forbids the use of Special Forces commandos to assist the bombing campaign. The Resolution does not permit an occupation, but it would be very surprising if covert

Allied military intervention in Libya has commenced

Reports are coming in that French jets have fired the first shots in the UN-supported intervention in Libya. The coming conflict will determine, in the short term, whether the Gaddafi regime is toppled and, in the longer term, whether the international community rediscovers its appetite for intervention which had been so diminished by the controversies over Iraq and the difficulties of the Afghan mission. That there is intervention at all in Libya is down in no small part to David Cameron and William Hague. Hague played a key role in ensuring that Arab countries were prepared to commit to putting planes in the air in this operation, something that was

Allies’ statement on Libya demands more of Gaddafi than just a cease-fire

A statement has just been issued by the sponsors of last night’s Security Council resolution, it reads: “Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable. If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences,

Freddy Gray

Hillary the hawk

Intervention it is then. Cue lots of politicians walking around with rousing West Wing music in their minds’ ears. This is the part where they get to play the good guys. Until something goes wrong, and they are bungling idiots again. Of course, it’s good for everyone to feel that a bombing campaign in Libya is a multi-lateral, UN decision – not an Iraq. But if this turns into a long campaign, American airpower will be expected to do the vast majority of the work. And while Obama may be reluctant to engage on a third front, there are plenty of enthusiasts in Washington – none more so than Hillary

Cameron’s persistent leadership on Libya was key to tonight’s resolution

David Cameron deserves huge credit for tonight’s Security Council vote. He has kept plugging away for a no fly zone and has succeeded in moving the Obama administration’s position. Cameron’s decision to have Britain table with the French and the Lebanese a Security Council resolution without the support of the Americans or even having talked to the president was a bold move that has turned out to be a game changer. The Prime Minister has proved himself an effective and courageous actor on the world stage. The question now is how quickly and effectively military force can be deployed and how Gaddafi is to be ousted. It, obviously, would have

Zelikow’s case for a no-drive zone

Philip Zelikow, who served on the 9/11 Commission and in both Bush administrations, has a persuasive piece in today’s FT arguing that a no drive zone on the highway from Tripoli to eastern Libya could be as effective as a no fly zone and easier to implement. He says that it could be enforced from off-shore with the use of precision weapons. Legally, there would be issue with this scheme—as there would be with any intervention in Libya that is not based on a full Security Council resolution  under chapter 7. But there simply will not be enough time now to get full UN authorization before Gaddafi has reasserted full

Gaddafi’s coming victory is a huge strategic setback for the West

It now seems almost certain that Colonel Gaddafi will now not only survive in Libya but reassert control over the whole country. With the fall of Ajdabiya, there is no break between Gaddafi’s forces and the rebel capital of Benghazi. The window for international action is shutting rapidly, even if it has not yet closed. But, as so often, there seems to be no multilateral desire for action. Gaddafi’s triumph is a disaster for the Libyan people but also one of the biggest strategic set-backs the West has suffered in the post 9/11 world. Every dictator will now know that they can suppress a revolt with violence without fear of

Cameron’s call to the White House

David Cameron’s statement on Libya today reflected his growing frustration at the pace at which the wheels of diplomacy are moving on this issue. In his statement, Cameron warned that ‘time is of essence’ and that Gaddafi staying in power, something Cameron had previously called ‘unthinkable’, would send a ‘dreadful signal’. Time, really, is of the essence. If we don’t see movement in the next few days, it seems almost inevitable that Gaddafi will crush the revolt. One of the things that Cameron stressed is that Gaddafi continuing in power would be more than a moral and humanitarian disaster. As he warned, ‘a pariah state on Europe’s southern border’ would

Cameron’s principled stand over Libya

Slowly, David Cameron seems to be mutating into a hawk over Libya. I’ve been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone – knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world. Since the evacuation chaos, which he apologised for, he has pretty much led calls for some form of military intervention to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people back into submission. He was laughed at to start with; accused of making it up on the hoof. But now the 22-nation Arab League backs this position, as does Sarko. It may have been messy at first – but that’s how these

The growing clamour for intervention

In the last two days, Nato and European leaders have declared that Gaddafi must go, but both have baulked at taking unilateral action. Their reticence has sparked a response from those in favour of intervention. Speaking in Brussels today, David Cameron said that situation on the ground may be getting worse and that Europe and the West in general “must be ready to act if the situation requires it”. Liberal interventionist Bill Clinton went further. Speaking at the Women in the World summit, he said: “I wouldn’t do it if they [the rebels] hadn’t asked… [But] it’s not a fair fight. They’re being killed by mercenaries. I think we should

The forgotten war

There is a war on. Not in Libya but in Helmand, where nearly 9,000 British troops are fighting. Last year was in fact the deadliest of more than nine years of war for Afghan civilians, the United Nations has just reported. You would not know it, though. For the events in North Africa have almost removed the issue entirely from the newspapers. When Hamid Karzai came through London recently, his visit barely registered. What a change from only half a year ago when every one of his idiosyncratic utterances would be replayed and over-analysed.   This may not be an altogether bad thing. Too much 24-hour coverage can make it

UN or not UN?

The garbled horror stories just keep on rolling out of Libya. According to the latest reports, Gaddafi’s troops have attacked the rebels in Zawiyah with redoubled violence and force. Aircraft, tanks, bombs, mortars – all have been used against the city and its people, with what one assumes are bloody results. As one resident puts it to Reuters, “Zawiyah as you knew it no longer exists.” It is unclear whether the rebels have now lost control there, but that is a strong possibility. Unsurprising, then, that the West is positioning itself to act. David Cameron, we are told, has been speaking with Barack Obama about the full spread of options

Obama backs Cameron on no-fly zone

Everyone knows that a media narrative is a difficult thing to change. So No.10 must be annoyed that so many newspapers, from the Telegraph to the Independent, are suggesting that David Cameron’s response to the Libya crisis has been “embarrassing,” and rejected by the US. But the Prime Minister would do well to stay the course and ignore the media for a number of reasons. First, just because US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is sceptical about a policy does not mean it is wrong. Somehow, the US Defence Secretary’s words are now taken as gospel in the British media and the PM is meant to repent immediately. Why? So what

What difference will sanctions make?

Slowly, haltingly, the West decides what to do about Gaddafi. The latest news is that, having broken his silence over Libya a few days ago, Barack Obama is now imposing sanctions against its despicable regime: freezing assets, blocking transactions, that sort of thing. It follows a package of sanctions, including an arms embargo, that Britain and France have proposed to the UN. Although these sanctions are better than nothing – the West shouldn’t house Gaddafi’s slush funds, nor transfer weapons in his direction – they are of limited actual worth. Yesterday, the Mad Dog was parading the parapets once again, promising death for the protestors. You suspect he is unlikely

That Petraeus story

Rumours abound that General David Petraeus will leave his post as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. Early editions of The Times quoted Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell saying that “General Petraeus is doing a brilliant job but he’s been going virtually non-stop since 9/11 [and] he can’t do it forever”. According to The Times, President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are searching for a replacement. And, says the newspaper, there has apparently even been talk of Petraeus succeeding Gates as Defense Secretary. Really? I find it extremely unlikely that President Obama, who has had a testy relationship with the military, including Petraeus, would promote the Army officer

Obama’s budget proposes cuts

President Obama’s new budget proposal is an interesting moment as Obama is now admitting that the time for fiscal stimulus has passed and that cuts needs to be made. As one administration official tells The New York Times, “The debate in Washington is not whether to cut or to spend… The question is how we cut and what we cut.” Interestingly, Obama has proposed a ratio of two third spending cuts and one third tax rises. By contrast, the bi-partisan Simpson Bowles commission on the deficit proposed something very similar to the 80 percent spending cuts, twenty percent tax rises model that Osborne is using. But the most interesting contribution

It’s China’s world. We just live in it.

Yesterday was momentous, but we should not lose sight of the head of the IMF saying that the Chinese renminbi could take steps to becoming a global reserve currency. To be specific: Dominique Strauss-Kahn has in mind adding renminbi to the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights system. In itself, no big deal – but a notable kiss being blown to Beijing. It fits a trend. The Chinese, notoriously, manipulate the value of their currency to keep their goods cheap, so they can’t have their currency treated with reserve status. But power is shifting – and America’s fiscal misbehaviour has unsettled international investors. John Peace, chairman of UK bank Standard Chartered, put

A businesslike State of the Union address

Jobs, people, work, new, years, make. You can get a good sense of Obama’s State of the Union address purely from its most frequently used words. Yes, this one was all about the future, and – another popular word – “investing” in it. As the President himself put it, sounding like some freakish amalgam of David Cameron and Gordon Brown, “If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.” The President wasn’t short of ideas for the investment half of that equation, even if – as others have noted – there was an absence of specifics.

“Our democracy to be as good as she imagined it”

President Obama rode to power on his rhetoric. Yesterday, for the first time in months, he rekindled that initial spark to speak to the nation – and the world – about loss, democracy and the compassion that is needed for a society to work. You can watch the full speech above. To me, though, this passage was particularly affecting: “I believe we can be better.  Those who died here, those who saved lives here – they help me believe.  We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.  I believe that for all