In an interview in the April issue of Atlantic, Obama lashes out at David Cameron for losing interest in developments in Libya after the coalition bombing campaign.
|Rather than being burdened with being the leader in military interventions after problems and casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has attempted when possible to ensure that other countries lead interventions and serve as proxies fighting for U.S. interests in return for a share in power and any benefits that might result.|
'And we worked with our defense teams to ensure that we could execute a strategy without putting boots on the ground and without a long-term military commitment in Libya. So we actually executed this plan as well as I could have expected: We got a UN mandate, we built a coalition, it cost us $1 billion—which, when it comes to military operations, is very cheap.Obama claims he had too much faith in the Europeans investing more in followup operations. For his part, Cameron defended the coalition Libya action in December 2015, telling the Spectator magazine that Libya was better off without Gadaffi: “What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then, as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Gaddafi regime and it’s very disappointing that there hasn’t been an effective successor regime.”We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.'