Interesting Defence of Obama in Libya

Lawrence Korb//March 23, 2011//Politico

President Barack Obama is being criticized from all sides on his Libyan policy.
Some criticism on these Opinion pages came from two high-level Bush administration appointees, both of whom had a role in bungling the war in Afghanistan and were part of a team that led this country into the needless, senseless invasion and occupation of Iraq. (In fact, these Libyan military operations began almost eight years to the day after “shock and awe” began in Iraq.)

Richard Haas, President George W. Bush’s director of policy planning in the State Department, contends that Obama’s Libyan war is ill advised because it is a strategic distraction. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense for Donald Rumsfeld, argues that Obama should have acted unilaterally a month ago.

But close analysis reveals four reasons that demonstrate Obama has done this just right. First, since there are no vital U.S. interests involved, it was necessary to take the time to gain legitimacy from the United Nations before launching attacks. Moreover, since the Bush administration had invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and thereby undermined U.S. standing in the Arab world, it was crucial that an organization like the Arab League endorse the action.
Second, the U.N. Security Council resolution, while somewhat ambiguous, encompasses far more than just a no-fly zone.

It also authorizes all necessary measures to protect civilians —excluding occupation forces. By allowing the nations involved to take “all necessary” measures, it legitimizes attacks on military targets by the coalition’s missiles and planes.

Third, given the fact that our military is overstretched and that we are broke, it was important that Obama get other countries to provide substantial military assets. Moreover, since there is still considerable anger among Arab and Muslim publics over the debacle in Iraq, it was important that Arab countries, as well as European allies, make military contributions. After the initial phase, the operation is to come under the control of another nation.Fourth, Obama has not exaggerated the threat or created unrealistic expectations about the outcome. He has not compared Col. Maummar Qadhafi to Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, nor has he said, as Bush did about Iraq, that we want to implant democracy in Libya, or that Libya poses an existential threat to the U.S.

It’s strange that, given the complaints of people like Haas and Wolfowitz, Obama’s strategy actually mirrors the way President George H. W. Bush (for whom they both worked) handled the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August of 1990 — but we waited six months before taking military action.

That Bush administration wanted U.N. approval and significant military contributions from other nations — Arab countries, like Egypt and Syria, as well as significant financial contributions from Japan. Just as important, it left Hussein in power. Is the Obama approach perfect? Of course not. Would we have wanted a U.N. resolution allowing ground forces to be sent? Yes. But had we insisted on that, the U.N. resolution would most likely have been vetoed. Would we like to maintain continuing complete control of the military operation? Of course. But by handing command over to another country, it will not look like another U.S. intrusion in the Arab world — and ensure that other nations continue to make more than token contributions. Moreover, even if the U.S. is not in command, we still play a substantial role by providing our unique capabilities.

For example, the U.S. military almost single-handedly eliminated Libya’s entire air defense system. Finally, the military operation over Libya is not so complex that it can only be handled by a U.S. commander. Would we like to remove Qadhafi from power? Sure. But stopping the killing has gained us points in the Arab World and with our European allies.

In fact, supporting our European allies was a critical reason for joining the coalition. Would it have been preferable to get a congressional authorization? Yes. But by the time Congress, especially this Congress, would have acted, Bengazi would have fallen to Qadhafi’s forces. How will this end? No one can say. But given the way Obama has handled it, U.S. strategic interests and prestige are likely to be enhanced, even if Libya becomes another Lebanon.