The worst thing that could foreseeably happen in Libya is for the situation to degenerate into an indefinite insurgent conflict in a failed state. Just a few weeks ago, that possibility did not realistically exist. It was created by our intervention, which managed somehow to combine the qualities of being too late, too hasty, and of the wrong kind.
The beginnings of Libya’s slide into a chaotic insurgency are plain to see in the tactics Qaddafi’s forces have adopted: They now dress like the rebels and drive around in “technicals” (armed pickup trucks) rather than tanks. In a classic example of asymmetric strategy, Qaddafi has stopped presenting the West with its preferred targets: warplanes, military vehicles, and identifiable installations. His forces are melting into the urban landscape, and it will not take them long to start appearing well behind rebel lines.
Advertisement
Obama’s strategy of diplomacy backed by air power is stripping the Qaddafi regime of the attributes of a functioning state. But those policies pose little threat to the regime’s tribalistic and terroristic core.
That core has now become Qaddafi’s only hope for survival. As we have learned elsewhere, absent an effective occupation, he could subsist in that core indefinitely, deep within a web of insurgent forces and terrorist networks that he controls or influences to varying degrees — and which protect him. Beyond that, the situation in Libya is sui generis. We are deep into the realm of unknown unknowns.
Obama has promised that there will be “no boots on the ground.” Regardless of his relaxed approach to keeping the promises he makes, Obama’s multilateral answer to the current crisis and his exquisite sensitivity to Arab grievances virtually guarantee that there will be no invasion by Western combat troops anytime soon. We have started a war of choice, and we are denying ourselves the means to win it.
Credible reports indicate that Obama has authorized the insertion of CIA and other U.S. operatives into Libya, in an apparent attempt to help organize the resistance into some sort of effective fighting force.
According to Ahmed Sanalla, a medical student turned rebel in Benghazi, the front-line rebel forces are several thousand strong. About a quarter of them are former military, most of whom defected with their units under Gen. Abdel Fattah Younes, the former interior minister. Most of the rest are simply members of the pro-democracy movement, which has been armed from army stocks since the fighting started. The military component of the rebellion is trying to organize the larger mass into units, but they face daunting challenges.
In Iraq, where cost was no object and we had more than 100,000 troops on the ground — and where an effective local force was desperately needed — a similar task took years. Granted, in Libya we have the benefit of scale: Qaddafi’s forces have been reduced to perhaps just a few tens of thousands. That means that if we could train and organize just a single brigade-size formation of rebel forces (say, several thousand effectives), we could — assuming plenty of U.S. and allied special forces on the ground, and the continued application of air power — conceivably defeat Qaddafi.
But regardless of scale, just training and organizing a force that large takes time; it cannot be compressed into a period of weeks. And besides, all of that basic training, equipping, and organizing has to occur away from the battlefield, whereas the rebels right now cannot afford to lose a single man.
If we were solely interested in humanitarian concerns, perhaps we would have been better served to provide cover fire on a path of retreat in case the rebels failed. We might have stationed an aircraft carrier offshore and cautioned Qadaffi that, if he won and started indiscriminately killing the defeated rebels, we would start indiscriminately bombing his forces. We might have told the Arab League that if our infidel boots were not supposed to wind up on Libyan territory, that they should supply Muslim troops to handle any actual invasion.
I am no strategist and maybe this would all be even worse than what we have. I think we are there for three reasons: (1) to establish the precedent that the UN can order our military into battle, at our expense; (2) to establish a precedent that the "right to protect" doctrine can be used to justify using our military against alleged oppressors; (3) to make us appear even weaker to the world, particularly Islamic nations. The third one alone will diminish the probability of revolts against totalitarian regimes of any kind. Rebels often call for US help, because our nation seems to be big and strong and willing to help while getting nothing in return. If we are seen as ineffective, they will quit calling for our help, and maybe decide that oppression is preferable to death.
Mario Loyola's astute conventional analysis of what is happening in Libya cedes far too much normative ground to the Obama administration, and what it might or might not attempt in order to influence the outcome. When the actions are demonstrably at odds with the stated purpose, and conflicting purposes are introduced on an ad hoc basis, the temptation is to look for evidence of incompetence.
I think that it's more important to look for the real purpose, and while I've heard maybe a dozen suggestions, nothing matches up well with the administration's behavior. (And I totally discount the Samantha Power humanitarian theory; that's just the mask.)
Four things I do not think it's about: oil, Islam, the "Arab Spring," or humanitarian compassion.
Peace is certainly a fifth thing it's not about.
It's not a "war of choice," because even that implies a casus belli. There is none here.
For those who study history
And military strategy,
A new approach to waging war
In ways that were untried before,
Is rarely seen or heard:
The old ways are preferred.
But in these times of global strife,
With sounds of drum and notes of fife,
A new man joins the hall of fame
Of leaders who receive acclaim,
For strategy in war,
Too brilliant to ignore.
With Hannibal, Napoleon,
And Kahn, the great Mongolian,
With Brennus and with Pericles
With Sun Tzu and Eurybiades,
Our President does share
A real strategic flair.
He joins in war, almost too late,
Makes public his withdrawal date,
Commences action from the air,
Then makes his enemies aware
He’ll not attack on land,
Across the desert sand.
Within just days, perhaps a week,
His reputation and mystique
For managing the world’s affairs
Achieves its peak when he declares
He’ll bomb the rebels too,
For things that they might do.
Perhaps another Nobel Prize
Our friends from Stockholm could reprise,
For excellence in strategy
While waging war on Tripoli.
It’s merited, at worst,
As much as was the first.
1) depends on a compliant President (reason enough to keep Democrats out of the WH);
2) will not be served by failure of the scope we seem to be facing, this is looking like Samantha Powers' Vietnam, it's going to taint the whole R2P principal. Nothing fails like failure. And If I were the Duck, Powers would go on my list of People to Make an Example Of, along with the UN President et al.
Mario Loyola, it's either gross incompetence or a deliberate attempt at creating the worst case based on the Chaos doctrine and in which case, is a deliberate attempt to destabilize NATO the UN and the US. Seems to be doing a fine job so far.
Great article, Mario. I have a feeling this article is one of the first to scrape the surface of a new reality in the Middle East and North Africa. We've learned a lot about how insurgencies start when the West gets involved. As Mario points out, this new one isn't isolated deep in the heart of Iraq. It is a stone's throw from a Europe that made a hash of Bosnia and Kosovo, and Europe doesn't have a clue as to how to deal with an Arab-Muslim insurgency. The dhimmitude of Europe will insure disaster, especially if the USA backs away from the mess. Talk about emboldening just the people who are most dangerous to the West.
Very well done! Obama, the 21st century's incarnation of Neville Chamberlain. As Winston Churchill put it, "They sought Peace with Honor and got neither."
Mario et. al.,
Question: Cui Bono?
Answer: Hillary Clinton. She put Obama in a position that she knew he could not win.
If we win: No more bloodshed, Gadaffi steps down: she looks like the statesman with foresight and guts. A real humanitarian.
If Obama dithers,lets UN deploy our troops, and hides behind NATO: She looks good for wanting to go after Gadaffi but Obama is an ineffective military buffoon. She can resign with head held high, and base intact. (Most likely scenario playing out.)
Any other scenarios I am missing? Any other people who benefit?
The article is fair, since the fecklessness and stupidity of the administration is obvious to the meanest capacities. However, there are at least 3 readily implementable strategies that would get rid of Qadaffi and make the intervention a success, all of them short of boots on the ground intervention - which incidentally would also turn into a success. The difficulties are purely political and purely due to the left's ineptitude.
First, arming the rebels and coordinating NATO air power with them would work. Libya is not a strong army - they lost a war against Chad when more united and stronger than they are now. Their opponents in that case had 400 Toyota pickup trucks, all of 24 French Mirages on top cover to keep Libyan helicopters off of them, and an ample supply of French Milan antitank guided missiles provided by Paris. It was entirely sufficient.
Add in actual ground directed NATO airstrikes and the rebels, so armed, would make short work of Qadaffi and his forces.
The second viable strategy would be Arab intervention led by Egypt. Egypt has 20 times Libya's population and a modern army with 3000 main battle tanks, including 1000 M-1 Abrams. The entire east of the country is already in rebel hands and there would be no opposition whatever to an Egyptian entry. Billing themselves peacekeepers intent on preventing a refugee crisis and failed state on their border, the Egyptian army could seize the country in less than a month and put anybody they like in power. If the US has any influence in the new Egypt this should not be hard to arrange; we certainly have sufficient influence over the rest of the Arab League to give Egypt all the diplomatic cover they might desire.
The third viable strategy is simply to track Qadaffi's own movements and put a JDAM on his head late some night. The British and French have both expressed willingness to pursue this solution; only the fecklessness of the American left stands in the way.
Yes, the administration deserves every word of the criticism in the article. No, this isn't because the mission itself is undoable or even hard. All it requires is a realistic choice on an effective method, ignoring PC pieties for anything that will actually work. Let's not make a very weak enemy seem stronger than it is...
Hopefully this article will incite an outbreak of common sense on this issue. You go to war to win - in as short a period of time as possible, and with minimum likelyhood of casualties for your troops as possible.
Obama seems obsessed with the latter point and never learned the first.
Obama might "like" this war for all the reasons stated plus one more. It continues the downward slide of the deficit (as well as weakening the nation). Each missile that he sends to Libya has to be replaced ($$$). When Clinton was shooting off missiles, he didn't bother replacing them. This led to holes in the stockpiles that had to be replaced under Bush.
Additionally, if missiles/weapons aren't replaced then our country is weaker because of it. Our technical superiority is what keeps the barbarians away (at least the bigger ones). Lower the stockpiles and weaken the nation.
The other effect is on personnel. Who wants to serve in the military under a clown such as this? Ground troops ARE on alert for deployment to Libya despite anything Obama might say (and we all know how good his word is!). Leaders that leave the military and good people that won't join weakens the military. We saw it with feckless leadership in Viet Nam and we are letting another clueless Democrat lead a war (actually 3!).
It's not even that he only allows us to bring a knife to a gunfight. He has armed us for victory with baseball bats!
