Democrats protest US role in Libya 'no-fly' zone

President Barack Obama. Photo / AP

President Barack Obama has come under attack from both Democrats and Republicans since joining an international coalition at the United Nations to enforce a "no-fly" zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Muammar Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people.

He might have expected criticism from the Republicans, whose leaders get out their shotguns whenever they hear the words "UN coalition" which evokes war by committee. President George W. Bush's former UN ambassador, John Bolton, has been almost foaming at the mouth. The next presidential election campaign is already under way after all.

But some Democrats, too, have objected to the military intervention in Libya. Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader wants Obama impeached for "war crimes". Congressman Dennis Kucinich is calling for the US Congress to bar funding for the Libyan engagement.

The most serious debate on Capitol Hill has been whether Obama's decision to order a military intervention was constitutional. Obama wrote to House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday, formally notifying Congress of the mission in the context of the War Powers Act, but it only caused more uproar. According to the Centre for a New American Security, the 112 Tomahawk missiles fired on the first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn cost more than US$81 million ($109 million).

As ever, Obama is a reluctant warrior in this, his third war after Iraq and Afghanistan. It was only on Wednesday last week that the Administration swung behind France and Britain at the UN Security Council - and at that point, the draft resolution for a "no-fly" zone got teeth.

According to some reports, Obama was persuaded to get off the fence by Samantha Power, the National Security Council senior director for multilateral engagement, and by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State who met the Libyan opposition leadership in Paris last week. On the other side of the argument were Defence Secretary Bob Gates, and National Security Adviser Bob Donilon.

The UN resolution adopted last Friday provided for "all additional measures" to protect civilians in Libya and - according to some interpretations - to secure regime change.

Obama himself has kept a low profile during a trip to Latin America. He has explained to the American people that the US is taking a back seat. He stresses that the transfer of military leadership will take place "in a matter of days, not a matter of weeks".

However, serious concerns in Congress remain. Key senators want to know Obama's exit strategy, what the mission entails and who's in charge. But his political rivals also see an opportunity. Sarah Palin, who is in Israel this week, identified Obama's pattern of "dithering" in his cautious approach.

Republican challenger Tim Pawlenty took up the charge that a "no-fly" zone would have been more effective weeks ago, before Gaddafi's forces rolled back the opposition wave in Libya. Newt Gingrich, another potential Republican rival of Obama next year, called the President the "spectator in chief" .

And former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney highlighted another familiar charge against Obama, accusing the President of appearing weak. "America has been feared sometimes, has been respected, but today, that America is seen as being weak," Romney said on Fox News. "We're following the French into Libya."

The White House and its allies insist that the UN resolution is simply to protect civilians and not a blank cheque for regime change. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stressed on NBC that "the goal of this mission is not to get rid of Gaddafi. This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives."

Obama's support for military intervention has been popular with the public. A CBS poll showed only 29 per cent disapprove of the Libya military operations. Libya was always going to be a tricky call for Obama. He would be damned if the US intervened, and damned if it didn't. Given the domestic reaction, with criticism from both sides of the aisle, he has probably pitched the US level of military engagement just right.