Libya, Cote D'Ivoire and "Vital Interests"

Finally! A pundit draws the parallel between the humanitarian crisis in Libya and those further South on the continent. Ted Koppel on Meet the Press Sunday:

"The question hasn't yet been answered as to why it is that Libya , of all countries in that region , has won the humanitarian defense sweepstakes of 2011 . We have seen many countries, both in that region and throughout the world , where civilian loss and civilian suffering has been much, much greater. Congo for the past 12 years, we've lost about five million people. Sudan , three million people, never any talk of military intervention . Take a look at what's going on in the Ivory Coast today. Secretary Clinton was talking about the number of refugees that might have come out of a Gadhafi attack on Benghazi . You've got 700,000 refugees in the Ivory Coast right now- -close to a million, in fact."

Take a bow, Mr. Koppel.

Of course, the argument for Libyan intervention is far broader than the humanitarian rationale the president has been reiterating and that Koppel cited. Hillary Clinton made this point explicitly on MTP.

"I mean, did Libya attack us? No. They did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries -- you just mentioned one, Egypt , the other Tunisia -- that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration? And, you know, David , that raises a, a very important point. Because you showed on the map just a minute ago Afghanistan . You know, we asked our allies, our NATO allies, to go into Afghanistan with us 10 years ago. They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact they were not attacked. The attack came on us as we all tragically remember. They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya , we started hearing from the UK , France , Italy , other of our NATO allies. This was in their vital national interest . The UK and France were the ones who went to the Security Council and said, "We have to act because otherwise we're seeing a really violent upheaval with a man who has a history of unpredictable violent acts right on our doorstep." So, you know, let, let's be fair here. They didn't attack us, but what they were doing and Gadhafi 's history and the potential for the disruption and instability was very much in our interests, as Bob said , and seen by our European friends and our Arab partners as very vital to their interests."

I think that's probably the best reflection of the White House's thinking on this that we've heard. Not that that's going to silence the skeptics. If anything, this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink list of catalysts is probably going to stir the debate even more, since you can pick out and quibble with each individual rationale. And it's not clear that the totality of these incentives -- humanitarian, regional stability, Arab relations, NATO relations -- outweigh the statement by Bob Gates that directly preceded Hillary's explanation (which could have been directed at Gates as much as at the public).

"I don't think it's a vital interest for the United States , but we clearly have interests there, and it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the United States."

Fascinating back-and-forth, and there's sure to be much more.

Congress No Monolith on Libya

The narrative that's emerged this week is in the media is that Congress opposes President Obama's action in Libya. I think that is overblown -- a handful of voices on the Hill being picked up and amplified in news reports. Some of the critiques are valid, some not terribly coherent, some posited for partisan gain.

In the first part of the week, I've reported on the congressional reaction to the U.S. lead on the military engagement in Libya through the lens of the Tea Party freshmen -- who are facing to the first military conflict initiated under their watch -- as well as senior Democrats who are backing the president (CQ, subscription required). In gathering information for both stories, it became clear to me that lawmakers' take on Libya is much more nuanced -- and conflicted -- than at first glance.

Talking Libya on the Morning News

It's a bit earlier than I normally like to start my foreign policy discussions, but I spoke to the local Fox News affiliated Tuesday at 7:30 a.m. on the political dynamics surrounding U.S. intervention in Libya. Enjoy!

Mission Indefinite?

Since the first Tomahawk missile was launched at Libyan air defenses at the beginning of the weekend, there has been almost non-stop talk about what the mission of the coalition bombing Libya IS in practice, and what a potential end-state would look like. The president tried to lay that out, full stop, on Friday, but it's done nothing to cease the chatter -- and hand-wringing -- since.

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, appeared on a number of Sunday shows to reiterate the president's line:

"This is a very specifically focused limited military mission to provide for -- to create the no-fly zone, to ensure that we protect the civilians in Libya and provide for the humanitarian support with force authorized in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution," Mullen told CNN's Candy Crowley.

Mullen did not rule out the possibility of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi staying in power. But as the British paper The Guardian noted Sunday,

"The Pentagon line contrasts with the more hawkish line in Britain, where David Cameron has insisted Gaddafi needs to go.

That's also the outcome Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) pushed for in a separate interview with Crowley. The pair -- two out of the self-labeled "three amigos" along with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) -- have been by far the most aggressive voices on Capitol Hill pushing for military action in Libya.

"Once the president of the United States says as President Obama did that Gadhafi must go, if we don't work with our allies to make sure Gadhafi does go, America's credibility and prestige suffers all over the world," Lieberman said.

The limited nature of the mission is also facing pushback from lawmakers who are at the other side of the debate on Libyan intervention. Senate Foreign Relations ranking Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana worried Sunday on Face the Nation that the humanitarian rationale was not enough to prompt military involvement, and could create a dangerous precedent.

"We must get this straight from the beginning or there’s going to be a situation in which wars linger on country after country, situation after situation, all of them on a humane basis," Lugar said of the mission's definition.

Lugar raised the situation in Bahrain. I would add Cote D'Ivoire to that list, which seems to have fallen completely off the radar, but is on the brink of a civil war that could be equally bloody and equally destabilizing to a region that can ill afford it. For some reason, nobody seems to be connecting the dots between that situation to our current actions, but I, for one, think the comparison is apt.

A number of House GOP leaders raised the same points as Lugar in press releases out Sunday.

It doesn't seem to have taken very long for the initial unity of purpose -- displayed both in Washington and internationally -- after Thursday night's UN resolution to begin to wear off ...

Weekly Rounds

Petreaus is coming! Petreaus is coming! Yes, that's right, the four-star general, himself, is in town this week. He's meeting with President Obama Monday afternoon and then testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday morning, the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday morning and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (in a closed session), Wednesday afternoon.

Given his near-mythic standing in Washington, you can bet lawmakers are going to be hanging on his every word. Among other things, they'll be looking for a signal from him about how "events on the ground" are shaping his determination of the troop withdrawal that begins in less than five months.

Also on tap this week:

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is holding a conference on Iranian human rights at the Capitol
3/15, 8:30 am

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry is speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on U.S. policy towards the Middle East amidst the unrest
3/16, 1 pm

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be in Tunis and Cairo 3/15-3/17, making news, I'm sure

The Russia Reset Part Deux - Could Congress Throw a Wrench in it?

If you caught any of the read-outs of Vice President Joe Biden's trip to Russia last week, you could tell how hard the Obama administration is pushing economic ties as the next phase of its much-hyped “reset” with Moscow (the other main takeaway from the trip, if you missed it, was a surprisingly tough speech from Mr. VPOTUS on Russian human rights and rule of law). My colleague Joe Schatz and I examined one of the roadblocks to the White House's economic outreach that Congress could throw up -- permanently normalizing trade relations.

Russia is pushing hard to join the WTO, but unless Congress lifts an old-school Cold War restriction on trade (CQ, subscription required) with Russia, our two countries won't be able to enjoy the benefits of WTO-sanctioned trade with one another. Joe is the trade guru, not me, and he explains all the complexities well in this story that could have potential diplomatic and economic repercussions for the U.S.

UPDATE, 3/14:

The same day our story ran in print, Biden wrote an op-ed published by the International Herald Tribune that lays out the White House vision for an expanded commercial relationship with Russia.

"Our trade and investment relationship is nowhere near where it could or should be," Biden wrote. "Russia was America’s 37th largest export market in 2010, and the value of goods that cross our borders with Canada and Mexico every few days exceeds the annual value of our trade with Russia."

It's a pretty stunning statistic, and in an age of growing trade imbalances, it certainly makes sense the U.S. would want to open up this market. But as the Vice President, himself, noted, it's going to take more than the WTO, it's going to take some big strides on corruption and legal standards by the Kremlin.

Tough Talk on Libya Not Widespread in the Senate

The Senate may have passed a resolution last week unanimously condemning the violence in Libya and suggesting the U.S. consider a no-fly zone, but a large swathe of the chamber still seems ambivalent at best about the idea of employing any type of military maneuvers in North Africa right now.

You wouldn't know that from listening to a handful of tough-talking senators (McCain, Lieberman, Graham, Kerry, Menendez et al ) who are calling loudly for the U.S. to join its allies and impose a no-fly zone over Libya. But I took the pulse of senators earlier this week and many of their colleagues do not share their enthusiasm for such an endeavor. The military resistance, in particular, seems to be dampening enthusiasm.

On the flip side, there seem to be growing calls in the Senate for a sustained military presence in Iraq after 2011. Not sure how well that's going to go over politically, either in the U.S. or Iraq ...