You're reading: Analysis: Now what? US ambiguity on Libya

WASHINGTON (AP) — The brutal realities in Libya, fears of damage to U.S. credibility and heavy domestic and international pressure pushed President Barack Obama into military action against Moammar Gadhafi. Now the president and his military chief are working hard to lower expectations about the outcome.

More than two weeks ago, Obama insisted that Gadhafi leave office and declared the Libyan leader had "lost the legitimacy to lead."

In the meantime, Obama had appeared less and less inclined to join the fight in Libya until the United Nations suddenly approved military action late last week.

As he announced on Saturday that America had begun applying its overwhelming military force, Obama said the U.S. was engaged in "a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians."

Obama significantly moderated his anti-Gadhafi rhetoric even as U.S. forces began pouring Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya’s air fields and anti-aircraft batteries.

By Sunday, Obama’s joint chiefs of staff chairman was saying the allied mission against the Libyan leader could end with him still in power.

Adm. Mike Mullen said the aim of the allied air campaign was limited and not "about seeing him (Gadhafi) go." Asked on NBC television if the U.N.-approved air assault on Libya could be successful without dislodging Gadhafi, Mullen said: "That’s certainly potentially one outcome."

Mullen was echoing Obama and, perhaps, intensifying the effort to ease back expectations in the midst of an uncertain military air campaign.

Throughout the more-than monthlong upheaval in Libya, American statements have reflected the administration’s internal ambiguity, particularly by comparison with its handling of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt that sparked deep unrest throughout the Arab world.

Despite the shifting rhetoric, Aaron David Miller, a senior Mideast adviser to six U.S. secretaries of state, said Gadhafi’s removal is the U.S. goal.

"There is now only one acceptable outcome: Gadhafi’s ouster or defeat," said Miller, now a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. "Anything less will further reduce American credibility in the eyes of dictators and democrats alike."

As the United States began hammering Libyan air defenses under the cover of U.N. Resolution 1973, it also took comfort in initial support from the Arab League. But that was called into question Sunday when Arab League chief Amr Moussa criticized the missile strikes, saying they went beyond what the Arab body had supported.

"What happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives," Moussa told reporters in Cairo. "What we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians." His comments seemed to be lending credence to unsubstantiated Libyan claims that nearly 50 civilians had been killed in the initial cruise missile attacks.

Regardless, France reported that Qatar would soon be joining it in no-fly zone patrols above Libya, reflecting not-surprising cracks in Arab solidarity in a part of the world where other longtime autocratic rulers fear for their futures in the wave of chaos sweeping the region. Entrenched rulers in both Yemen and Bahrain have used force against uprisings, but did not elicit the stern response from either Washington or its allies now attacking Gadhafi.

With the U.S., Britain and France now engaged, Obama faces significant opposition among critics who see dangers in a lack of precise goals and, as important, an exit strategy.

One of the more vocal skeptics in Congress is Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"We really have not discovered who it is in Libya that we are trying to support. Obviously the people that are against Gadhafi, but who?" he said on CBS television. "In eastern Libya, for example, a huge number of people went off to help the Iraqis against the United States in a war that still is winding down."

Aware of those fears in the United States and a deep weariness with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama emphasized that he was "deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it."

And, therefore, he gave the military significant wiggle room to lay back after initial action.

"The United States will contribute our unique capabilities at the front end of the mission to protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners," he said, promising he would not send ground forces into the conflict.

But what if things go badly?

"The odds aren’t in Gadhafi’s favor. But if this goes wrong, we’ll have to pick up the pieces," said Miller. "The issue is this: will enough pressure be brought to bear on those around Gadhafi to force the regime to crack before the conflict settles into prolonged stalemate. Tripoli is a city of 2 million. Who’s going to go in and take him out?"