Obama strongly defends US military action in Libya
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defending the first war launched on his watch, President Barack Obama declared Monday night that the United States intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world's conscience and "been a betrayal of who we are." Yet he ruled out targeting Moammar Gadhafi, warning that trying to oust the Libyan leader militarily would be a costly mistake.
Obama announced that NATO would take command over the entire Libya operation on Wednesday, keeping his pledge to get the U.S. out of the lead — but offering no estimate on when the conflict might end.
He never described the U.S.-led military campaign as a "war" and gave no details on its costs, but he offered an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and its allies to act.
In blunt terms, Obama said the U.S.-led response had stopped Gadhafi's advances and halted a slaughter he warned could have shaken the stability of an entire region.
"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
Obama spoke to a respectful military audience at the National Defense University. In Libya, rebel forces bore down on Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte with the help of airstrikes by the U.S.-led forces.
The address to the nation was the president's most aggressive attempt to answer the questions mounting from Republican critics, his own party and war-weary Americans — chiefly, why the U.S. was immersed in war in another Muslim nation at a time when the U.S. is all but buried in debt.
Obama sought to counter criticism from both left and right over his handling of Libya. Some Democrats are disappointed that Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, would initiate military action against a third Muslim country after inheriting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some Republicans say Obama waited too long to help anti-Gadhafi forces and that the U.S. mission should be more clearly aimed at toppling the Libyan dictator. Other Republicans argue the U.S. should not intervene in a conflict that does not directly affect U.S. national security and is likely to costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
Lawmakers from both parties said Obama should have consulted more with them before beginning military action. Some say he should have sought formal congressional approval.
Amid protests and crackdowns across the Middle East and North Africa, Obama stated his case that Libya stands alone. "In this particular country, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," he said.
He also warned of the broader implications for the region, without naming the other countries undergoing violent upheaval, if the U.S. had failed to act in Libya.
"The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power," Obama said. "The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security."
Obama took pains to say why he chose to intervene in Libya even while acknowledging that America's military cannot be used to stamp out every instance of repression.
"There will be times when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are," the president said.
"Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving," Obama said. "And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help."
The president also sought to address critics who have said the U.S. mission remains muddled. Indeed, he reiterated the White House position that Gadhafi should not remain in power but the U.N. resolution that authorized the use of military force to protect Libyan civilians does not go that far.
That gap in directives has left the White House to deal with the prospect that Gadhafi will remain indefinitely. Obama said the U.S. would try to isolate him by other ways.
"Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake," Obama said. "If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next."
And then he raised the issue of Iraq, a war that deeply divided the nation and defined the presidency of George W. Bush. "Regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars," Obama said. "That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."
"We must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right," the president said. "In this particular country — Libya — at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale."
The fighting in Libya has created a distraction at a time that Obama was expected to focus on U.S. budget battles and the economy — the issues likely to dominate his reelection campaign next year.
The government faces a partial shutdown if Democrats and Republicans can't work out major differences and pass a spending bill by April 8. Meanwhile, the economy is recovering only gradually from the recession. Unemployment remains high at almost 9 percent.
(기사내용)
오바마, 리비아의 군사개입 정당
워싱턴 (AP) - 오바마 대통령은 리비아에 대한 미국의 개입은 민간인이 살해당하는 것을 방지하기 위해 필요한 조치였다면서 그렇지 않으면 세계인의 양심과 미국이 추구하는 이상을 배반하는 것이 될 것 이라고 천명했다. 그러나 카디피를 군사적으로 축출하려는 시도는 엄청난 비싼 대가를 치를 것이다 고 했다.
오바마 대통령은 리비아에서 군사 작전권을 나토에 이양한다는 본인의 공약을 지켰다고 말하고 작전이 언제까지 계속될지에 대해서 언급을 하지 않았다. 리비아 군사작전은 “전쟁”이 아니며 미국과 동맹국들의 국가이익에 부합하는 것이라고 말했다. 미국의 주도로 카다피의 진격을 저지했고 리비아의 안정을 깨는 살육해위는 막았다고 했다.
미국은 세계의 지도자로써 인류에 대한 책임을 다할 의무가 있으며 리비아의 잔인무도한 상황을 못 본체하지 않는 것은 미국이 다른 나라와 다른 점이라고 했다.
미국 국방 대학교에서 군인들에게 미군 폭격의 도움을 받은 반군이 카다피의 고향인 시르테에 접근하고 있다는 것을 언급하면서 주로 국가 부체로 어려운 상황에서 또 다시 이슬람 국가의 전세에 개입하는 것을 반대하는 공화당을 위시한 민주당, 전쟁에 염증을 느낀 미국인들의 의문에 대해 자신의 입장을 강력하게 피력했다.
오바마 대통령은 중동과 북아프리카지역의 시위사태와 진압과정에 대해서 미국의 개입이 없었다면 그 지역의 독재자들에게 폭력진압이 최상의 방법이라는 잘못된 신호를 보낼 수 있다고 경고하면서 유엔의 행동은 세계 평화와 안전을 보장하기 위해 빈말이 아니라는 인식을 심어 주는 것이다 고 했다.
현재 오바마 대통령은 의회의 양당으로부터 리비아 사태 해결방안에 대해 공격을 받고 있는데 민주당은 제 3의 아랍국가에 대한 전쟁을 반대하는 반면 공화당은 카디피의 축출을 목적으로 하지 않은 미국의 전쟁 목적에 대해 회의를 표시하고 있다. 의원들은 전쟁 개시와 진행상황을 의회와 긴밀하게 상의하고 의회의 승인을 얻어야 한다고 말했다.
오바마 대통령은 미국의 군사개입은 카다피 정권을 붕괴시키는 것이 첫 번째 목적은 아니고 유엔의 군사개입도 민간인 보호가 목적이기 때문에 미국은 군사적 방법이 아닌 외교적인 방법으로 카다피를 축출할 수 있다고 말했다.
오바마 대통령은 리비아에 대한 지상군 파병에 의한 정권교체 시도에 대해 군사작전의 한계를 지적하고 부시대통령에 의한 이라크 전쟁의 경우 정권교체에 8년의 시간, 수천 명의 미국인 희생자와 1조 달러의 비용이 소요된 경험을 언급하며 리비아에서 다시 그런 시도를 할 여력이 없다고 했다.
미국의 국가이익이 우선되어야 하지만 리비아의 엄청난 폭력행위에 직면해 있는 이 시점에서 정당한 행동을 취해야 한다는 것에 이의를 달 수 없다고 했다.
현재 미국이 당면하고 있는 예산삭감과 경제적 문제의 해결에 집중해야 할 때 리비아 문제에 시간을 뺏기는 것은 내년의 대통령 재선에 장애가 될 수 있다. 미국의 실업률은 현재 9% 대를 유지하고 있고 미 의회 양당이 협력하여 4월 8일 까지 예산집행안을 통과 시키지 않으면 정부 업무가 일부 정지되고 경제회복이 늦어 질 전망이다.
KNS뉴스통신 kns@kns.tv
