RealClearPolitics sat down with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during his visit to the University of Chicago on Wednesday, May 11, to discuss the ongoing NATO operation in Libya as well as the turmoil in Syria.

RCP: What would it mean to the credibility of NATO and the United States should the violence stop in Libya, but Gadhafi is left in power?

Rasmussen: I think it's a hypothetical question because it's hard to imagine a complete end to violence and attacks against the civilian population if Gadhafi remains in power. This is also a reason why the International Contact Group has called on him to leave power and NATO has endorsed that call.

RCP: NATO has endorsed that call?

Rasmussen: Yes, indeed. NATO foreign ministers endorsed that call recently. We had a meeting in Berlin last month.

RCP: The Telegraph reported today that a NATO spokesman said, "I tell you the truth, we're not really interested in what [Gadhafi] is doing." Doesn't this conflict with President Obama's March 3 statement that Gadhafi "needs to step down from power and leave"?

Rasmussen: No. What we want to stress is the fact that we are not targeting individuals. We are carrying out a military operation and hit [sic] critical military capabilities that can be used to attack civilians. We are not targeting individuals. It doesn't change the fact that NATO has endorsed the international call on Gadhafi to leave power.

RCP: What is the end state for Libya?

Rasmussen: The end state is a transition to democracy in Libya.

RCP: Influenced by NATO?

Rasmussen: No, it's for the Libyan people to shape the future of Libya. We have two tracks: We have a military track and a political track. As far as the military track is concerned, NATO has taken full responsibility for the operation and we have defined three clear military objectives for our operations to be fulfilled. Firstly, a complete end to all attacks against civilians; secondly, a withdrawal of Gadhafi military and paramilitary forces to their bases and barracks; and thirdly, immediate and unhindered humanitarian access to people in need in Libya. Then, in the political track, the international community has put a lot of pressure on the Gadhafi regime through sanctions, and at the same time, the International Contact Group has decided to step up support -- even financial support -- for the opposition. I do believe this combination of high military pressure and enhanced political pressure will eventually lead to the breakdown of the Gadhafi regime.

RCP: Given that the stated purpose for intervening in Libya was to prevent a humanitarian crisis, should NATO intervene in Syria as well? Despite the lack of a U.N. mandate, stopping the violence in Syria would certainly be within the "principles in the U.N. charter," wouldn't it?

Rasmussen: It is indeed a very good and legitimate question, but I think I only have a pragmatic answer. We must evaluate each country on a case-by-case basis. We do not have the capacity to solve all crises in the world. In addition to that, the situation in one country is very often different from the situation in another country. You can't just outline one common approach. This is basically the reason why we responded positively to the request from the U.N. There is a mandate, a legal basis. There is strong support from the region. Neither of these conditions are fulfilled as far as Syria is concerned.

RCP: Do you think there ought to be a U.N. mandate for Syria now?

Rasmussen: I don't know. Obviously the situation in Syria is a grave situation. I strongly condemn the repression of the Syrian people, but I'm not going to guess whether the United Nations will intervene.

RCP: OK, on Russia: Does Russia's aversion to Eastern European involvement in NATO raise flags that Russia may be returning to a Soviet-era geopolitical model?

Rasmussen: My bottom line is that we need a strategic partnership with Russia if we are to fulfill our mission of a Europe whole, free and at peace. We know that the Russians are skeptical about our open-door policy. We have to stress that no country outside of NATO can veto NATO decisions. Our door remains open to European democracies that fulfill the necessary criteria. The Russians must accept that this is a basic principle founded in the NATO treaty as it was drafted and adopted back in 1949 when NATO was established.