We Are At War Again

We are at war with Libya. Our President, who ran for office promising to end two American wars in the Middle East, and reneged on both promises, has now launched us into a third. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just sayin'.

Let's review. Over the last several weeks the Administration has been at odds with itself over the civil war in Libya. At any one time, different views of our policy were stated by senior members of the Administration. The President said that Gaddafi must go, but made it rather clear that he wasn't going to do anything to make that happen. Then President Nicolas Sarkozy took the lead. France leads international alliance! All at once Obama climbs on board. But on board what, exactly?

The French, with a lot of help from Secretary of State Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, pushed a "no-fly zone" policy through the U.N. Security Council. Okay, so a coalition of nations would ground Gaddafi's air force.

The problem with the "no-fly zone" idea is that it sounds like something short of war. It isn't. It means not only shooting down Libyan military aircraft over Libyan airspace, which is surely an act of war. It also means destroying the regime's anti-aircraft defenses on the ground.

It is possible that that would have been enough, if it had been done weeks ago. Back then the rebels were in control of most of the eastern half of the country and Gaddafi was busy restoring control over Tripoli. A no fly zone then might have kept him locked in his capital, forced to sue for peace. Obama's dithering allowed the regime to get on its feet and drive the rebels into their last stronghold, Benghazi.

Now, to keep the rebellion alive, it isn't enough to ground Gaddafi's planes and helicopters. It is necessary to attack his tanks and other machines on the ground. That is what the coalition is doing. This is called mission creep.

There is enough of the neocon in me to want to believe in Obama's Libya policy, if only I could believe that he had a policy. Today someone lobbed a missile into Gaddafi's "residential complex". Apparently Gaddafi thinks he is a Kennedy. Whose missile was it? David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Barack Obama are among the suspects. Only Obama is denying it. Is Gaddafi himself a target? The Pentagon says no. Liam Fox, Britain's Defense Secretary says, well, yeah, sort of.

The U.S. is not, I repeat, not taking the lead here. Except right now, because we have the capacity to do so. Later other nations will take the lead. Ok.

What I don't get is what do we do next? The latest news has Gaddafi's forces retreating from Benghazi. Great. Now what? If, as President Obama has promised, not one American boot will touch one grain of Libyan sand, how are we going to make sure that Gaddafi goes? Surely we can't leave this wounded, snarling, bizarrely dressed monster in power. I have no idea what we intend. I wish I could believe that Obama does.

The Administration clearly believes that the U.S. should not take the lead in this business, even if we have most of the cruise missiles. We are told that it is ok to intervene because the Arab League said it was ok. Do any of our real enemies give a rat's ass about the Arab League? Is U.S. leadership really so toxic that we have to keep it in a lock box?

Or could it be that we are not taking leadership because, just right now, our President is utterly incapable of exercising leadership? Just asking.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

President Obama's measured, thoughtful response is hardly dithering. Dithering is what South Dakota's ruling party has done to cement hopelessness, suicide, and despair in its own population.

Stick to solutions, Doc; it's what you do best.

[Dave]

OK, just for balance, a critique of FOX news coverage of the whole thing.

from NewsCorpse.com

For much of the past week Fox News has been complaining that President Obama has not done enough for the people of Libya. Most of these stories castigated the President as a weak leader who was ignoring massive suffering on the part of people who are fighting for their freedom against a brutal tyrant. As the story unfolded Fox Nation posted items with headlines that constructed a dramatic story of incompetence and neglect.

The Fox Nationalists painted a picture of a “President Gone AWOL” who “Bows the the UN” that “Authorizes No-Fly Zone” so that allies “Declare Military Action” while “Obama Outsources the War to the French.” So obviously the story climaxes with…

“Serious Doubts Raised About Obama’s War In Libya.”

That’s right – it’s now Obama’s war. A military action that Obama was supposedly to indecisive to start, and too much a follower to lead, is now declared to be a full-fledged war that belongs solely to Obama. When did Obama return from being AWOL? When did he assume ownership from the French? When did it become a war?

In truth, there are legitimate reasons to raise doubts about this affair. While the Libyans are certainly in dire need, and the action was supported by the UN as well as the Arab League, the United States is not particularly well situated for sinking into another potential mid-east quagmire. But that’s exactly why this action should not be led by the U.S. Ceding a more prominent role to the French, the British, and regional players not only prevents the U.S. from bearing the bulk of the military and financial responsibility, it weakens the inevitable accusation that this is just another imperialistic adventure on the part of the United States.

However, for Fox to mischaracterize the course of events so deceitfully is – well, actually it’s just the way Fox operates. Before the military action Obama was indecisive and compassionless. In the formative stages he was weak and lacked leadership. Now, during the assault, when we and our troops are at the most risk, Fox chooses to focus on doubts expressed by the President’s political opponents.

It’s safe to predict that after the action is completed and Qaddafi is awaiting trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity, Fox will lead with “Obama Bows to the Netherlands in Qaddafi prosecution.” Or maybe “Kenyan President of U.S. Hands Libyan Dictator Over to Dutch Dope Smokers.”

[George Mason]

Dave; The headlines you posted appear quite accurate. While Libya burned Obama went on vacation. When the President of France has bigger cajones than the President of the U.S. that's a problem. And Dave maybe you should try watching Fox News instead of complaining about it in an attempt to draw criticism away from the incompetence of the Obama administration.

[larry kurtz]

W after 9/11: "Watch this drive."

[Donald Pay]

No leadership. You guys are crazy, but then I never assume that righty crazyness will ever be consistent. The right likes to jump up and down, like the tipsy student section during "Jump Around" at Badger games. It's cute, but it's no reason to take you seriously.

The right is beside itself that Obama took leadership in Libya after they had jumped up and down calling for him to take leadership in Libya, although they themselves couldn't be bothered to hold any hearings on the situation in Libya(gutting NPR, after all, is far more important). Now the right jumping up and down because they don't like this or that aspect of his leaderhip. Jump Around, guys, and have another beer. Next the right will be jumping up and down because Obama didn't consult with the Republicans. Jump Around and Hoist Another One. Then it will be something else. Jump Around.

This is being handled fairly well by Obama. The bloodbath has been averted. The US has neutralized the anti-aircraft batteries. The French and Brits and others will patrol the no fly zone. The Arab League is on board.

There should have been more Congressional input, but the Republicans aren't interested in being a responsible party. Too busy with important items like holding emergency hearings on NPR funding.

[Jimi]

Dave,

"now declared to be a full-fledged war that belongs solely to Obama"

When you beg to be the leader of the free world you assume the responsiblity of the actions made by the Free World....It's What Leadership is all about! It's also what being a Super Power is all about!

[Jimi]

Larry,

"W after 9/11: "Watch this drive."

You meant August 4th, 2002 didn't you? Never ceases to amaze me when people point to bad behavior to justify their own bad behavior.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"The bloodbath has been averted"

Human Rights Watch put the Death Toll at over 6,000 Dead, twice as many wounded on March 3rd....which was the first day Obama publically commented on the subject after waiting 17 days from February 15th when the protests began to ramp up.

Now that's real IDGAF Leadership IYKWIMAITYD!

"but the Republicans aren't interested"

Democrats control the Executive Branch and the Senate!

[larry kurtz]

The globe is littered with W dog poop. Quadddafffi will be scooped up and disposed of in a slightly soiled little UN bag. It's all good.

[Ken Blanchard]

It is nice to see my spirited interlocutors stoutly defending the leadership of the Hyde Park Hamlet. Dave thinks that only Fox News deceit can be responsible for the view that the President's policy is confused. Unfortunately, the New York Times is as confused as I am. Larry thinks that the President's policy is measured, and Donald thinks it's going well. Why then does the Administration continue to contradict itself? Are we going to make sure that Gaddafi is gone or are we not? Yes and no, according to different spokespersons at different times.

The President tried to explain. What we are doing now is defending defenseless people. That's all. Ok. But it's our policy that Gaddafi should go. Ok. But policy requires not only an objective but a plan for achieving that objective. How can we have a policy when we scrupulously avoid anything that actually aims at that objective? The President is incoherent.

Three weeks ago Gaddafi could have been blown over by a whistle. By the time the President acted, or was acted upon by the wind, Gaddafi is in control of most of Libya. This is nuts.

[Donald Pay]

If it would have been so easy to blow over Gaddafi, you didn't we see the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, voting on a declaration of war, rather than funding to NPR. The right likes this macho talk, but when it comes down to actually combat, you guys run and hide.

[K.B.]

Donald: look at yourself. You're accusing the other side of cowardice because they didn't declare war on a nation that represents little threat to the U.S. You have become the people you have contempt for.

Your comment is completely divorced from reality.

[Mark Anderson]

Ken, see the following link. 1999, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
Republicans didn't like that either.

[Jimi]

"Six years ago, I opposed this war because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, & whether our intelligence was sound."-Obama 2008