THE AUSTRALIAN: THE Libyan crisis has presented Barack Obama with the first serious opportunity to demonstrate his multilateral approach to US foreign policy, eschewing the go-it-alone era of George W. Bush.
But this test-run of the Obama doctrine is already copping political flak from the US President's critics.
Mr Obama's position on Libya has appeared confused at times. He hesitated until it was almost too late. The Libyan mission is now defined as a limited exercise to protect populations under attack by imposing a no-fly zone, yet a core message from the White House is that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi "needs to go".
The US is front and centre of the action, yet Mr Obama would prefer to shunt prime responsibility elsewhere.
At the heart of the President's conundrum is his attempt to strike a delicate policy balance as a push for reform sweeps through the Middle East.
First Tunisia; next Egypt. When will it stop? Which autocratic regimes, a number of them close allies, will the US pick to support or oppose?
When Mr Obama hesitated at involving the US in a Libyan no-fly zone, he was wary of the risks.
The last thing he wanted was a third war against a Muslim country. Resentment of the US in the Arab region remains high.
The only way for Mr Obama to justify legitimate action was to ensure that a no-fly zone was seen to be at the request of Arab nations, had UN backing and the load was shared with coalition partners. » | Brad Norington, Washington correspondent | The Australian | Wednesday, March 23, 2011
