President Obama on Libya
President Obama made the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies and try to stop Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from slaughtering thousands of Libyans. But he has been far too slow to explain that decision, or his long-term strategy, to Congress and the American people.
On Monday night, the president spoke to the nation and made a strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight — and why that did not always mean it should intervene in others.
Mr. Obama said that the United States had a moral responsibility to stop “violence on a horrific scale,” as well as a unique international mandate and a broad coalition to act with. He said that failure to intervene could also have threatened the peaceful transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, as thousands of Libyan refugees poured across their borders, while other dictators would conclude that “violence is the best strategy to cling to power.”
Mr. Obama could report encouraging early progress on the military and diplomatic fronts. Washington and its allies have crippled or destroyed Colonel Qaddafi’s anti-aircraft defenses, peeled his troops back from the city of Benghazi — saving potentially thousands of lives — and allowed rebel forces to retake the offensive.
Just as encouragingly, this military effort that was galvanized internationally — the United Nations Security Council authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya — will soon be run internationally. Last weekend, the United States handed over responsibility for enforcing the no-flight zone to NATO. And the alliance is now preparing to take command of the entire mission, with the support of (still too few) Arab nations.
To his credit, Mr. Obama did not sugarcoat the difficulties ahead. While he suggested that his goal, ultimately, is to see Colonel Qaddafi gone, he also said that the air war was unlikely to accomplish that by itself.
Most important, he vowed that there would be no American ground troops in this fight. “If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force,” he said, “our coalition would splinter.” He said “regime change” in Iraq took eight years and cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. “That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”
Instead, he said the United States and its allies would work to increase the diplomatic and military pressure on Colonel Qaddafi and his cronies. A meeting on Tuesday with allies and members of the Libyan opposition is supposed to develop that strategy along with ways to help the rebels build alternate, and we hope humane and competent, governing structures. That needs to start quickly.
To hold their ground and protect endangered civilians, let alone advance, the rebels will likely need air support for quite some time. Mr. Obama was right not to promise a swift end to the air campaign. At the same time, he should not overestimate the patience of the American people or the weariness of the overstretched military.
And as Washington reduces its military role, others, inside and outside NATO, will need to increase theirs. Within NATO, unenthusiastic partners like Germany and Turkey need to at least stay out of the way even if they continue to stand aside from the fighting.
The president made the right choice to act, but this is a war of choice, not necessity. Presidents should not commit the military to battle without consulting Congress and explaining their reasons to the American people.
Fortunately, initial coalition military operations have gone well. Unfortunately, it is the nature of war that they will not always go well. Mr. Obama needs to work with Congress and keep the public fully informed. On Monday, he made an overdue start on that.
Looks Like a Duopoly
AT&T and Verizon Wireless have emerged from a 15-year consolidation spree with almost two-thirds of American cellphone subscribers. Now AT&T wants to take this a step further. It is proposing to gobble up the No. 4 carrier, T-Mobile, in a $39 billion deal. The Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission must review the deal with much skepticism and block it if needed.
As proposed, the acquisition would leave two companies with nearly 80 percent of the market and a weak third national carrier, Sprint, without the scale to compete effectively. In an industry where lack of spectrum imposes an enormous barrier to entry, cellular telephony in the United States could become an anticompetitive duopoly.
AT&T argues that there is plenty of competition in most markets where national carriers compete with regional companies like MetroPCS or Leap Wireless. It says that falling prices are proof that competition is vibrant.
But these smaller rivals hardly represent significant competition. They can’t provide a nationwide seamless network and must rely on costly roaming arrangements. They lack the scale to deploy extensive high-technology 3G and 4G networks. And as big carriers tie up the best smartphones in exclusive deals, the smaller carriers have been left out of the booming data market. Even Sprint and T-Mobile may have insufficient spectrum to challenge the leaders. In recent years, they have lost many subscribers.
As for the claim of falling prices, that is hard to measure because charges are often shrouded in bundles that tend to penalize all but the heaviest users. The government’s index for wireless telephone services shows prices plummeting at double-digit annual rates from the late 1990s until 2001. But as consolidation gathered pace over the last decade, the price decline slowed dramatically.
This doesn’t mean that AT&T’s proposed purchase of T-Mobile should be rejected. But the hurdle must be high: the F.C.C. and the Department of Justice must ascertain that the arrangement does not reduce competition any further. In fact, for the acquisition to be deemed in the public interest, it should ideally lead to more competition.
AT&T could be required to sell chunks of its network or divest swaths of spectrum. Regulators could impose conditions like mandatory data roaming on the AT&T network or a commitment to provide nondiscriminatory access to data from third parties on its wireless network.
It is uncertain whether regulators could write conditions that would ensure strong enough rivals emerged to stand up as competitors to the two wireless giants. If they can’t, they should not let the deal go through.
That’s What They Think About the Voters
Something strange and sleazy is going on in Suffolk County. But the two politicians at the center of it — County Executive Steve Levy and District Attorney Thomas Spota — have apparently decided that the public doesn’t have a right to know what’s happening.
On Thursday, Mr. Levy abruptly announced that he wasn’t running for a third term, saying he wanted “to tackle other challenges.” But then he said, almost as an aside, that “questions” had been raised about his campaign fund-raising and that he was surrendering his $4 million war chest to the authorities.
Then Mr. Spota had a statement. He said a 16-month investigation had uncovered “serious issues” with Mr. Levy’s fund-raising, but he didn’t say what they were. He assured everyone that Mr. Levy had not “personally” profited and claimed that the issue was now resolved because Mr. Levy had forfeited the cash. Mr. Spota also said that he could have sought Mr. Levy’s resignation, but decided not to.
Is this really something for Mr. Levy and Mr. Spota to decide and then cover up between themselves?
These aren’t the first questions raised about Mr. Levy’s fund-raising. At a trial of a former county legislator, one witness — a convicted tax evader whom Mr. Levy (an old friend) had recommended for $85,000 in county title-insurance work — said Mr. Levy had traded contracts for campaign cash. Mr. Levy dismissed the charge, claiming that “desperate defendants often fabricate claims.”
Mr. Levy still has nine months in office and Mr. Spota has two and a half years until he is up for re-election. The voters who gave them their jobs have a right to know what is going on. Mr. Spota needs to disclose what “serious issues” he found in Mr. Levy’s fund-raising and explain why he decided not to indict him. Mr. Levy must explain his role in this mess from start to finish. That’s a challenge he can’t walk away from.
It Will Take More Than a Few Regrets
Sightings are reported of that rarest of Washington species — Republican moderates. If only.
The Republicans in question are Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The four voted in lockstep with the rest of their caucus in support of the House Republicans’ ludicrous and destructive budget-slashing bill. But then they put out word that they did not much like it that the bill had eliminated one popular and valuable government program: funds for family planning.
Mr. Brown, possibly remembering the voters back home, was the first to say that the family planning cut “goes too far.” The other three then added their asterisks to their G.O.P. budget fealty.
Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins once creatively worked the middle ground. In recent years all we’ve heard is how they’d like to reach across the aisle, but somehow the time or the deal or the we’re not sure what else isn’t right.
They, as well as Mr. Brown and Ms. Murkowski, certainly could have voted no in the first place and — who knows? — struck a spark for the art of compromise. Still, we would like to believe that this is the start of something big: a rejection of scorched-earth polarization and the beginning of a serious discussion of the role and responsibility of government in tough budget times.
The real test will come soon. Will they reject their leadership’s calls for drastic cuts and draconian balanced-budget amendments so that the government can continue to operate? True moderates do not shut the government’s doors for the sake of ideology or cynical political gain.
0 comments:
Post a Comment