'What does success in Libya look like?'

Analysts and a good number of US politicians are singularly unconvinced by the casus belli presented by President Barack Obama for intervening in Libya.

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Republican John Boehner, said : “The speech failed to provide Americans much clarity to our involvement in Libya. Nine days into this military intervention, Americans still have no answer to the fundamental question: What does success in Libya look like?”

A recurring theme in American military intervention — no exit strategy — unless you believe that running it under the banner of Nato somehow constitutes US “withdrawal”. That by wearing the Nato badge somehow makes US forces less costly to American taxpayers or the US military less accountable for the loss of US personnel.

Of course many will point to the decision being taken by the United Nations Security Council which passed a resolution to create a no-fly zone and protect Libyan citizens. This however must be read against the backdrop of the same UN appointing Libya as a member of its Human Rights Council and steadfastly refusing to intervene in Myanmar, Tibet and Zimbabwe.

On Monday Obama told Americans that he had stopped a massacre in Libya, but excluded ousting Muammar Gaddafi by force because it may “repeat the carnage of Iraq”.

“As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” Obama said.

Unfortunately if that were genuine then the UN or US would have been intervening in Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Yemen and Bahrain to name but a few of the recent instances where massacres of civilians have been overlooked.

Yet it was Obama who criticised George Bush for going to war in Iraq.

In the case of Bush the policy on intervention was if you are a threat to the US you will run the risk of invasion.

Obama’s is far less clear — intervening in civilian massacres has been — at best — selective.

Why Libya?

What is his foreign policy on intervention?

If you don’t subscribe to our value system and we don’t like you — only way I can distinguish this from the Syrians and protesters in Bahrain who are being butchered — then we might pop in to blow you to kingdom come?

And at least Bush had the decency to ask Congress for its blessing before going to war because that is what this is.

I would trust the US Congress every time but the UN maybe 20% of the time.

Obama has ordered air and naval strikes on a country that has neither threatened nor attacked the US. In terms of the US Constitution the power to declare war is entrusted solely to Congress.

On what basis was Obama authorised to intervene in Libya?

Yes the UN has authorised its member states to take action but that does not mean that the president of the US does not need Congress to authorise it before the US gets involved.

He is obliged to obtain its approval before committing American assets to any conflict.

Certain Republicans are claiming that his conduct is impeachable.

It certainly merits sanctions.

To my mind the biggest sin committed by Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy is in opening the door to the United Nations – the worst hypocrites and most untrustworthy body on the planet – intervening in a sovereign country and, even as the Western leaders try and backtrack from this reality, bringing about regime change.

Personally I can’t stand Gaddafi but I would accept him in Libya a million times over before setting the precedent of the United Nations deciding on where to intervene and which regimes need changing.

If you have any doubts about that just look at which countries sit — or used to sit — on the Human Rights Council.