Regime Change is the Issue in Libya. Why Doesn’t Obama Understand That?

Further to this item noting the differences between what David Cameron and Barack Obama are saying, a White House spokesman emails Ben Smith to say there’s no contradiction between the American insistence that this is not about regime change and Cameron’s suspicion that it’s hard to see how Gaddafi can remain in power:

This is very easily explained. We still believe that Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy to lead and must go. However the goal of this resolution is not regime change. Rather it authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing. Those two things aren’t contradictory.

Fine, the resolution may not authorise regime change but the logic of the policy surely insists upon it? Do the Americans really mean to suggest that they could live with Gaddafi remaining in power? Because that’s the logic of this statement. Achieving the resolution’s aims is only the first step because if there’s no second step then there’s every chance Gaddafi can remain in power in at least part of Libya. That doesn’t seem like a very good outcome, not least since Gaddafi might have every incentive to cause trouble in the future.

So here we are: if satisfying the terms of the resolution is the only goal then we face the prospect of a half-cocked mission that fails to address the deeper causes of the trouble that’s being used to justify our intervention. And if regime change is the obvious end destination then we have a mission that’s being sold, at least by some, on false pretences. Neither of these things seems like a sound basis for military action or clarity of mission and objective, no matter how righteous the fighting may be.

Again, how does this end and what do we actually want to achieve?

UPDATE: See TIME’s Mark Thompson for more on the Pentagon’s unhappiness.