US lets others lead in Libya
At first glance, it looks as if the Obama administration has executed a sudden turnabout in its attitude toward military intervention in Libya. Two weeks ago, U.S. officials were talking about all the reasons a no-fly zone was a bad idea; now, they’re all for it.
In fact, the administration was closely divided all along — torn between a desire to help Libya’s rebels overthrow Moammar Gadhafi and a fear of getting the United States enmeshed in another messy war in the Muslim world.
The core of the problem, to put it brutally, was that the stakes were too low. In traditional foreign policy terms, whether Gadhafi won or lost didn’t directly affect U.S. interests. We’ve lived with Gadhafi’s rule for four decades, and even treated him as something of an ally in the fight against al-Qaida since 2003. So while President Obama and his aides were rooting for the rebels to win, they weren’t willing to lend them the U.S. Air Force to make sure it happened.
The dilemma of “humanitarian intervention” is not a new one; in fact, it’s been one of the central problems of U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush sent U.S. troops to protect a humanitarian aid mission during a civil war in Somalia, and quickly wished he hadn’t. In 1994, then-President Clinton didn’t send U.S. troops to stop a genocide in Rwanda, and quickly wished he had. There’s no easy answer.
Predictable factions
In this case, the Obama administration divided into predictable factions. The human rights camp said something had to be done or the cause of Arab democracy would suffer a terrible setback and civilians would be massacred. The military experts warned that a no-fly zone was harder than it looked, didn’t guarantee a successful outcome and would tax already overstretched U.S. forces. The Middle East wonks said it was essential to get support from other Arab countries first, lest any action become a Western intervention that would galvanize anti-U.S. opinion.
In discussions that one participant described as painful, the administration grappled its way to a position: The United States would participate in a military intervention only if others took the lead and the United Nations Security Council blessed it.
Even as the administration reached its decision, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron took on the challenge of getting a resolution from the Security Council — and, more important, accepted leading roles in any military action. In an unexpected bonus, the Arab League voted to endorse a no-fly zone, eliminating the fear of local backlash against foreign intervention.
The resolution that resulted is a surprisingly muscular, expandable mandate. It doesn’t just call for a no-fly zone; it authorizes attacks on Libyan army vehicles and artillery on the ground. It focuses on preventing a humanitarian disaster, but it also calls for “the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”
And in their statements, supporters of the no-fly zone went well beyond the resolution’s language, making it clear that their goal is to make sure Gadhafi falls.
Hawkish Clinton
On Thursday, even before the Security Council voted, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton revealed herself to be one of the administration’s hawks, telling a town meeting in Tunis, “Gadhafi must go.”
“We know that there is no good choice here,” she added. “If you don’t try to take him out, if you don’t support the opposition, and he stays in power, you cannot predict what he will do.”
So now a U.N.-blessed coalition, led by France and Britain, is intervening in Libya’s civil war. It includes the United States but also Arab countries; diplomats say United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. There are reports that neighboring Egypt has quietly begun trucking weapons and ammunition across its western border to the rebel capital of Benghazi; military advisors may follow.
Plenty of questions remain. Will the foreign airstrikes be enough to stop Gadhafi from marching on Benghazi? (His regime proposed a cease-fire only hours after the Security Council resolution was approved, showing that mere warnings can be effective if they’re believable enough.)
Americans and the rest of the world have gotten used to seeing the United States take the lead role when the United Nations or NATO calls for foreign military intervention, but this time we are not fully in charge.
The arrangement, if successful, could lead to a new model in which the United States doesn’t have to command every campaign and lead every charge. And that would be as important, in its own way, as removing Gadhafi.
Doyle McManus is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.