Realizing our hand in Libya
Friday, March 11, 2011 at 11:03AM
Austin Bay on Strategy Page (by way of Craig Nordin) a couple days back talking about covert action.
I don't know Bay personally, but he always impresses with his just-aggressive-enough logic that you always want him in the discussion, and I believe his thinking here is especially welcome.
Everybody keeps saying, No-Fly-Zone equals act of war, but that's a red herring. It is a clear abrogation of sovereignty in this age, but it does not signal a classic state-on-state war dynamic, where the "act of war" logic is appropriate. No one thought we were at war with Saddam across the 1990s when we NFZ'd both north and south, and this is an entirely feasible route for us to go here, one that's short of serious intervention (and all that entails) and beyond just sitting on our hands or taking in refugees.
But here's Bay's point that really struck me, because it's why I'm writing my WPR column for Monday on having exactly the same feeling in my own head these past few days: We are letting a winning hand go to waste here.
Bay:
Here's a clue: 2011 finds America representing history's winners at the strategic, long-term level. The demands for freedom in the streets of Tunis and Cairo echo the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Ironically, 2011 also finds an American government that is tactically alienated from these energized democratic forces because it is convinced of America's past agency in what its left-wing academic gurus call imperialism, racism, reactionary-ism, et cetera. For these toffs, the hint of U.S. involvement in an event taints its historical purity, or some equivalent balderdash.
But the world isn't a faculty lounge. In Libya, as President Obama mulls, Gadhafi's air force mauls.
We only get so many opportunities to lead, and this is one of them. So this is where Obama has to decide if he really is, as the Right contends, born and bred for a "post-American world" or whether his definition of renewal allows for a reversal of that perception. I find the whole PAW concept (less Zakaria's actual book but how the notion is employed) to be the most insidious form of self-defeatism, and entirely inappropriate for the age we're in. Even the "risers," when you examine where they're at and what they need, don't really welcome this notion in reality--just in anticipation. Unless Obama can start articulating something post-"post-American world," I would have to argue that we'd be better off with somebody else come 2012, just like I did with Bush in 2004 (and yes, I am concluding that, in this era, we cannot afford 2-term presidents). I just don't think the world can afford 4 more years of such non-leadership. We need something short of Bush but above what Obama is mustering right now.
Reader Comments (7)
I see Obama's biggest problem as being his unwillingness to break away from the paradigm that makes the EU our principal "allies" in the world. It's as though the Euros gave Obama a nice shiny prize at the beginning of his Presidency and as a result, he just can't say no to them. I see Europe as a frightened turtle that is curling up into its shell trying to preserve its social democratic paradise while pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist - even though most of the problems in the world today are the by-products of European colonialism, Libya being a very good example as it was brutalized by Italian colonialism, leaving Libya as the bankrupt country it is today.
I almost wish that Obama really was the anti-colonialist that right wingers like DeSouza and Gingrich claim that he is. If he were, he wouldn't be sucking up to Europe begging them to give their blessing to military action in Libya. Instead of talking in Brussels, Obama should be talking to the Russians and the Chinese to line up their commitment not to veto a Security Council resolution. Wiith an OK from the Security Council, the US can go it alone, with or without the Europeans (or the Arab League or the African Union). Getting NATO involved would be nice because it includes Turkey, which would rebut the "clash of civilizations" spin that al Qaeda et al. would try to put on American military action.
I'm definitely looking forward to Monday's WPR column. I'd hate to think we've missed the opportunity to get rid of another tyrant, but I also think that some consultation and long term planning is warranted. In the end, I can't help but think that Obama (and the rest of the US) will be blamed regardless of what is done, so he might as well try to level the playing field for the rebels.
Mitch Daniels is so sensible about domestic policy, leading in such a calm, but forceful, idea driven way, does anyone know where he stands on foreign affairs? He one ups Barack Obama, having a Syrian Christian immigrant father. The Hudson Institute, which he lead, has some interesting, level headed stuff about the Middle East. Have you heard anything?
In story books and musicals the rebels always win. In real life it's a different story. The best led and most determined rebel force in history was defeated right here in our own country. If Bobby Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia could not prevail, how can we expect any better from a rag tag bunch that uses precious surface to air missiles to fire at pick up trucks.
I have said it before...don't be fooled by the comic opera uniforms and the seemingly bizarre behavior. This guy is smart and cunning. He has emissaries out now talking with (read that stalling) other countries. His son threatens us with a Libya run by Bin Laden. We have been the world's policeman for decades. Everyone is waiting for us to do something. We are rushing a naval force to...Japan.
George Bush does not look good just yet. But...if this keeps up....
I hope President Obama has insider info that is causing his caution. However, I expect a lot of media efforts comparing him to Carter's inability or unwillingness to take pragmatic actions rather than hope for emerging worldly wisdom.
If Bobby Lee had been supported by the British Navy - which almost happened - the outcome likely would have been different.
By trying to get some type of consensus with all of the various players involved, the U.S. is merely just another person in the room. The world is upside down when France is where one has to look for leadership. The events will have long, unfolded without any significant action being taken in any direction. We are much like a ship without a rudder. As Churchill said "consensus is a lack of leadership"