"Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake." - This line is obviously going to turn a few heads, considering the role of the current air campaign in supporting rebel advances, reported attacks on the Colonel's compound, and not to mention the ever-present role of the U.S. in Nato, regardless of a stepdown of our 'lead attack' profile. But consider Obama's words here....he will actively pursue non-military means, and he will not broaden the role of the US military to include regime change. I don't think any of this precludes regime decapitation strikes, or showing Gaddafi what could be if the allies 'go heavier.' Sure, in effect, a succesful US led decapitation strike would result in regime change, and seemingly violate Obama's declarations tonight; but the act itself of killing the Colonel via airpower is as vital to protecting civilians, at this point, as it would be necessary for regime change. Hence, my suspicion is that a stepdown in the US role could provide the coalition with the political flexibility to 'go heavier' on Gaddafi and his regime. - "The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya." - Basically, we cannot explicitly and openly commit to regime change, because we are not in a position to see it through, nor would we be willing to bare the cost of another Iraq if we were able. Still, I think we are trying to kill Gaddafi, in fact,.....and we should...but we should act within our means. Non-military means includes engineered assassinations and coups. And the coalition should expand military targeting, outside of a narrow interpretation of the UN mandate, for the sake of rebel support; however, they should not announce this publicly, not for the sake of keeping this from their own publics, but for the sake of strategic ambiguity. Why? 1.) We cannot allow the rebels to get ahead of themselves believing the coalition will be there to back them. 2.) Announcing a NorthernAlliance/NatoAirPower Afghan-style war effort in Libya is likely to inflame and complicate the democratic revolutions taking place in the region, namely by providing headwind support to radical antiwestern opinion. Hopefully, others will chime in here, and we can have a discussion. I think the president has handled this crisis brilliantly.