海角大神

No one has ever accused President Obama of being overanxious to use military force.

But as Mr. Obama considered and ultimately authorized US military action Thursday to address the mounting humanitarian and security threats posed by Islamist militants in northern Iraq, two earlier crises where military intervention was not used likely figured in the backdrop of White House discussions on what to do about a looming genocide and an imminent threat to US personnel in Iraq.聽聽

One was the attack on US diplomatic compounds in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, and the other was the Rwanda genocide in 1994.

Four American personnel were killed in the Benghazi attacks 鈥� including US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, the first American ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979. The Benghazi attacks led to heated debates in Washington over whether Obama should have responded to the attacks with military intervention 鈥� and to charges from some Republicans that the president鈥檚 reluctance to use force was a factor in the loss of American lives.聽聽聽

In announcing his authorization of air strikes in a televised statement Thursday night, Obama said he was acting to protect American personnel in Erbil, the Kurdish capital in northern Iraq threatened by advancing forces of the self-declared Islamic State (IS), formerly known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). The US has a consulate in Erbil and military teams advising the Iraqi military and the Kurdish Peshmerga on their fight with IS.

Administration officials are also relying heavily on the argument of the presidential duty to protect Americans, especially personnel of the US government, in justifying the airstrikes Obama authorized. The Pentagon announced Friday morning that US air strikes had commenced, in particular against mobile artillery batteries that IS is positioning ever closer to Erbil.

鈥淭he protection of US personnel and facilities is among [the president鈥檚] highest responsibilities as commander-in-chief, and given the threats that we see on the periphery of Erbil, he has authorized the use of targeted military action,鈥� says a senior administration official, who requested anonymity to discuss Obama鈥檚 decisions.

Obama had already 鈥渕ade clear鈥� in June, when he announced he was sending teams of military advisers to Iraq to work with Iraqi security forces on addressing the advancing ISIS threat, that protecting US personnel would be a top priority, the official says. 鈥淚f we see actions anywhere in Iraq that threaten our personnel or facilities,鈥� the official adds, 鈥渨e stand prepared to take targeted action to protect them.鈥�

The second action Obama authorized was air drops of food and water to thousands 鈥� estimates range as high as 40,000 or more 鈥� of ethnic minority Yazidis who have fled IS to take precarious refuge on a mountaintop outside Sinjar, Iraq. The Yazidis, an ancient Kurdish people who never converted to Islam, are considered by the Sunni militants to be infidels who deserve extermination.

Hundreds have reportedly been slaughtered, Yazidi women were kidnapped to become slaves to IS fighters, and the spotty reports from the mountain refuge claimed hundreds more Yazidi deaths, particularly among children, from thirst, starvation, and exposure.

Lingering in the background, as Obama discussed the humanitarian crisis with his national security team this week, was the Rwanda genocide that occurred under another US president鈥檚 watch. In 1998 and while he was still president, Bill Clinton apologized while on a visit to Rwanda 鈥渇or not having acted to stop the genocide.鈥�

Since then, President Clinton has repeatedly cited his inaction on Rwanda as one of his 鈥渂iggest regrets,鈥� claiming that US-led action by the international community could have saved 300,000 lives.

In his televised statement, Obama said that thousands of innocent Iraqis were facing 鈥渃ertain death,鈥� and as a result, 鈥淎merica is coming to help.鈥� Citing 鈥渁 situation like [the one] on that mountain,鈥� Obama said the US would act 鈥渃arefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide.鈥�

Obama said the humanitarian action did not constitute a US return to the Iraq war, but he suggested the US has a moral responsibility to intervene given the circumstances. 鈥淲ith innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help 鈥� and when we have the unique capabilities to avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye,鈥� Obama said.聽聽 聽聽

Obama鈥檚 actions have so far run into little opposition and have been deemed justifiable by many foreign policy analysts 鈥� especially when they are explained, as they have been by the White House, as necessary actions to protect US personnel and to prevent a potential genocide.

鈥淭his is a potential humanitarian catastrophe, and if we can prevent or mitigate it within a manageable level of risk 鈥� which I think we can 鈥� then we ought to do it,鈥� says Charles Dunlap, executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at Duke University in Durham, NC.

Professor Dunlap, a former deputy judge advocate general of the US Air Force, says that while air strikes 鈥渕ay not alter the strategic situation in Iraq 鈥� there is much to be said for saving what lives we can today as we continue to work the larger issues. We don鈥檛 to be witnesses to genocide.鈥�

The air strikes Obama authorized are also 鈥渨ithin the president鈥檚 constitutional authority as commander-in-chief,鈥� Dunlap says 鈥� and especially to the extent they are 鈥渋ntended to protect American lives and American aircraft.鈥� The transport planes carrying out the humanitarian air drops are accompanied by fighter jets authorized to intervene in the case of attack.

If anything, some critics say the actions taken by Obama are fine as far as they go, but still suggest a president dangerously reluctant to face the IS threat head on and to take the broader steps that defeating IS would require.

鈥淭he president鈥檚 authorization of airstrikes is appropriate, but like many Americans, I am dismayed by the ongoing absence of a strategy for countering the grave threat ISIS poses to the region,鈥� House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement Friday. 鈥淰ital national interests are at stake,鈥� he added, 鈥測et the White House has remained disengaged despite warnings from Iraqi leaders, Congress, and even members of its own administration.鈥�

White House officials say the president does indeed have a 鈥渓ong-term strategy,鈥� but they say it is rooted in a conviction that it will be the Iraqis themselves, through a unified and inclusive government, backed by capable Iraqi security forces, that will defeat the IS threat.

鈥淲e are not launching a sustained US campaign against鈥� IS, a senior administration official says, 鈥渂ecause our belief is the best way to deal with the threat 鈥� over the long term is for the Iraqis to do so. But that does not mean,鈥� the official adds, 鈥渢hat we鈥檙e not going to support them in that effort through additional assistance, training, equipping, intelligence, advice.鈥澛�

That 鈥渟trategy鈥� won鈥檛 satisfy those who want a more assertive stance from a reluctant-interventionist president, but Obama鈥檚 approach does finds support in some circles.

The US should act to slow IS鈥檚 advance in Iraq, and 鈥渓imited airstrikes, supported by solid intelligence, can play an important role in this effort and can help protect civilians,鈥� says Vikram Singh, vice-president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress in Washington.

But 鈥渨ithin Iraq,鈥� he adds, 鈥渢his crisis remains a political challenge that can only be resolved by a more inclusive Iraqi government.鈥�