The Obama administration’s Libyan strategy is a paradox — resulting from the president’s belatedly announcing that Moammar Qaddafi must go, using military force against him, and then denying that our objective is to see him leave. The president seems more knowledgeable about the tournament chances of two dozen college basketball teams than he does about the Libyan labyrinth. So let us review what follows from a campaign that has not been approved by Congress and is not supported by the American people — but which we must now hope works, given the commitment of American troops.
WHY LIBYA? The Obama administration, after over two weeks of unrest in Libya, grandly declared that Qaddafi had to go. Why? I think because it seemed then almost certain that the rebels were just about to throw him out. We did not wish to seem calculating, opportunistic, and on the wrong side of history, as we had when we belatedly piggy-backed on the rather easy departures of dictators/not dictators — and former allies — Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali.
Advertisement
But any student of the Middle East could have reminded the president that Qaddafi is not Mubarak or Ben Ali, but more akin to Ahmadinejad, Assad, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein. Tyrants of that stripe don’t leave when told to. They equate exile with a noose. Such thugs stay in power until they are killed or driven out by overwhelming military force — usually well beyond what dissidents and insurgents can muster.
After nearly three months, there is also still no typology, even if informal, offered of Middle Eastern unrest. The Obama administration has not explained how our muscularity with Libya fits into our larger policy of embracing “outreach” to Syria, not “meddling” in Iran, and keeping silent about Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Bahrain and about the popular unrest in the Gulf and Jordan. Where do we intervene in the region, for what and on behalf of whom, and how and for how long?
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES We dream of all sorts of things in Libya. I know that because I have heard about the coalition’s objectives from generals, administration officials, and representatives of our allies: We wish only to impose a no-fly zone that will prevent the regime from using aircraft against the rebels. But since aircraft are not essential to a Qaddafi victory, we may attack Libyan armor, infantry, and artillery from the air, either through nocturnal cruise-missile attacks or by wink-and-nod European air strikes dependent on American protection and guidance. Since Qaddafi per se is not the target of our attacks, and since we have ruled out the use of ground troops and regime change though force, we hope he will leave of his own volition. But to make him leave, we need to see him militarily defeated by the rebels, who are incapable of that mission without around-the-clock destruction of Libya’s military — officially beyond the administration’s stated aims. Again, we have ruled out the use of ground troops, but if someone else wishes to insert them to coordinate with our air strikes, then all the better.
What are we left with? A mission that is part Black Hawk Down, part the twelve-year no-fly zone in Iraq, part working with insurgents as in the 2002 removal of the Taliban, and part Bill Clinton’s various air campaigns over the Balkans. So far, no one has agreed on any objective other than that Qaddafi should not be killing his opponents.
Is he to be gone? If so, how soon and replaced by whom or what? The Libyan military? Westernized intellectuals and professionals? “Secular” Muslim Brotherhood types? Former jihadists whose experience was killing Americans in Iraq? Or is American success defined by rendering Qaddafi impotent and a rebel enclave safe, in the same way that for over a decade the Kurds carved out sanctuary from a closely monitored Saddam?
I couldn't stop laughing when I heard the President promise that the US leadership of this operation will last days and not weeks. To us in Fly-over country he gave the impression that our "allies" would be taking things over very, very soon.
But with what? As VDH explained, the French have one small aircraft carrier. The Brits have none. I would imagine, the "coalition" forces who are flying missions are flying out of bases near and around Italy. The US carrier task force is the only game in town. What the President means is that within a few days, US Naval forces will come under the command of some UN task force, probably led by some Scandanavian or Bolivian officer no one has ever heard of.
This is how we fight coalition wars Progressive style. In that way, the President can out source the political risk, but still take the accolades if things turn out well (big if). He and his Progressives can then beat thier chests and lecture. And HRC will be the first person in US history promoted to Field Marshall.
But the real question is, "What if the air strikes do not work? What then?
Three weeks ago when the rebels had Tripoli surrounded, the 2 cruise missiles fired into Khaddafy's compound would have toppled the despot and negated the need for a no fly zone. Waiting until the tyrant's military had all but defeated the rebels before taking action was foolish. It not only facilitated the deaths of thousands at the hands of Khaddafy's forces, but it ensured that thousands more will die in the stalemate that has unnecessarily been created.
I support it and I want our guys to prevail. At the very least I want them to not be charged with murder or dereliction of duty when the lack of a clear ROE and mission invariably catches them out.
I do however, reserve the right to thoroughly enjoy the mental gymnastics and pretzel logic of the formerly smarter than us all "anti-war" left as they rush to prop up their progressive hero in his rush to war. The Nation? NYT? MSNBC? Beuller? Anyone?
Well, Obama is nothing if not consistent. But this is the disaster we've all been expecting -- he's bringing the same sloppy, half-thought-out and balmy rhetoric to foreign affairs that he's been using in domestic matters for three years now. Sigh ...
I would say that we need to bring our troops home, and impeach the President. He has committed an act of war without Congressional approval. "We" aren't "committed" to anything. Obama is a narcissist of the worst sort, for whom conducting war must be nothing more trying than a video game; and something to be done solely for his own personal advancement.
>"The US carrier task force is the only game in town."
Look at the map. Libya is within fighter range of France and Italy, no US carriers required. In fact the downed US F-15 was operating out of a base in Italy. The Europeans could, and should, be carrying out this operation with zero help from us.
This is all deliberate by Obama. He wants to avoid the charge of "acting unilaterally" and possibly "nation-building" in Libya. He deliberately delayed until either NATO or the UN did got their collective backsides in gear. By jumping in once that happened he can claim he "led the way" while at the same time claiming we are "only supporting UN/NATO action" (as opposed to directly trying to bring down the current Libyan government) by retreating into a support role.
In short, he's trying to play it not just BOTH ways, but EVERY way he can so he and his media lapdogs can spin it in his favor no matter what happens.
"Unfortunately, I fear that with this administration the disaster we've all been expecting has yet to come."
Ah, yes, you are right. I should have said this is one of the disasters, or an escalation of foreign policy disasters. Yes, the real disaster is indeed yet to come
The problem for liberals was not Bush's oversight of the Iraq War. It was Bush's lame "reasons" for the war itself. Bush's much-vaunted WMDs never existed.
Morally, it's much easier for a president to stop a dictator who is indiscriminately shelling his own cities.
"Look at the map. Libya is within fighter range of France and Italy, no US carriers required."
Despite your ability at geography, you miss one sailent point -a carrier based fighter/bomber can be target in minutes. Not so with land based fighters. As far as the rebels are concerned, the Euro Air Forces might as well be in Rio for all the good they will do them. Tactical air support (and this is really what is going on) requires fighters that can be on target within minutes - not hours.
Usually someone who was as spectacularly wrong about foreign policy as 2003-2005 VDH would show some humility when it comes to opining about foreign policy issues. But, no, there he is again, demonstrating that classic VDH wit and charm. Remind me again why we should listen to the guy who compared the invasion of Iraq to the fall of the Berlin Wall? He should stick to "amo, amas, amat"; he hasn't the talent for anything else.
I understand that the Harvard faculty is all in knots over this incursion. Perhaps we can get a twofer here. Put the Harvard faculty in charge of Libya.
I heard an Obama administration spokesman say that the USA’s objective in Libya is to create a “level playing field” between Khaddafi and the rebels.
There you have it, the perfect Liberal war aim: FAIRNESS.
The spokesman did not say – nor did the “reporter” ask – whether the US would intervene by bombing the rebels if they gain the upper hand against Khaddafi.
One of these days a president and/or congress will call for our warriors to take action against foreign tyrants who massacre their own people to remain in power! Our warriors will tell the professional, political, parasites to handle it! "We the People..." will fight ONLY when our commanders are in charge from start to finish!
Then our warriors will NOT be treated as cannon fodder to be killed by the insane actions and choices of these maniacal politicians!
The lack of any clear rationale for Obama's unilateral (in terms of our country's political processes) commitment of the US military in Libya brings to mind Von Clausewitz's famous dictum: war is the extension of politics by other means.
The simplest application of this is that you don't go to war in the absence of a grander political strategy. We have no grand political strategy in the Middle East generally (at least, no overall strategy Obama will admit to) and certainly have none in Libya. If other countries in the mix have some overarching political objective then that is their business. It does not give us any reason to become involved.
This is not to say that we could not develop a broader political viewpoint and strategy, only that we have not. Perhaps the biggest mistake when we become involved in a war without reason is then to allow our thinking to be driven by the exigencies of war. Yet that is exactly what we are leading up to here. The moment American troops are on the ground, or an American pilot is shot down, the entire calculus changes by necessity and the initial error is amplified geometrically.
Declaring war is not an antidote for failing to think things through.
Once again, the right-wing responds with blind opposition to any act this Administration does. Obama showed restraint until our allies, the Arab League and the UN were on board, then clearly stated our position that Quadafi must go. He's not taking the lead on this and I for one am glad. Haven't we caused enough bloodshed in the Arab world lately? Let somebody else do the heavy lifting. My back hurts after eight years of the Bush debacle.
