Cameron vs Obama. They can’t both be right about Regime Change.

This afternoon in Washington, Barack Obama was at pains to stress the limited nature of the planned action against Colonel Gaddafi. To wit:

“We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya,”

On the other side of the Atlantic, answering questions in the House of Commons, David Cameron said:

The aim is clear: to put in place what has been required by the UN Security Council, which is a cessation of hostilities. It is the protection of lives and the protection of people. It is the prevention of a bloodbath in Benghazi. It is to make sure that arms do not get to Libya, that assets are frozen and that travel bans are imposed. It is all those things. Those are the aims, and they are what we must now pursue. Of course, like many other leaders the world over, we have all said that Gaddafi needs to go in order for Libya to have a peaceful, successful and democratic future, and that remains the case. It is almost impossible to envisage a future for Libya that includes him.

In other words, regime change may not be an explicit part of the UN resolution but let’s not pretend it’s not a large part of the objective here. It’s a mark of the American hesitancy – see Josh Rogin on the administration’s internal debate – that Obama won’t mention regime change. But when the operation sprawls (as seems quite possible) the Obama administration may regret its failure to be entirely clear (or honest?) about this mission’s goals. Then again, perhaps they’re still trying to figure out what these goals are.

The Prime Minister, of course, was wise enough to leave himself with some wriggle room, but whereas Tony Blair was often keen to play down the regime change aspect of the Iraq War, here the situation is reversed: the UK is happy to say that getting rid of Gaddafi is part of the plan and it’s the Americans who, sensing a restless, unpersuaded public, are keen to stress the formal, limited nature of the operation.

But a choice will have to be made at some point since it seems unlikely that the Prime Minister and the President can both be right. For that matter, it would be useful to have them in agreement before the planes begin to fly.

UPDATE: An American official makes it clear. “It’s not designed to have him go. That’s not the purpose,” the official said. “The purpose of the military action is to prevent massive humanitarian loss of life, to stop the violence. If the violence stops, then you shouldn’t leap to say then the military action will continue until he leaves.”