A couple of weeks ago, when rebels held most of Libya, sweeping Mad Colonel Qaddhafi into history’s dustbin would have been a quick and painless process. This regime is, after all, no military powerhouse – it once lost a war against Chad – and it was down to depending on hastily hired mercenaries, unlikely to sell their lives dearly if menaced by a superpower.
At that juncture, according to President Obama, speaking this afternoon, “the United States and the international community moved swiftly” – so swiftly and to such great effect that by yesterday Qaddhafi’s thugs had reoccupied virtually the entire country. As they advanced, the President declared, “We are slowly tightening the noose.” Slowly even in geological time.
Then came yesterday’s abrupt turnaround. The noose will no longer be braided out of paper. With the best will in the world, the decision to go to (sort of) war may have come too late, after the rebels have suffered too many deaths and too much demoralization to carry on against what looks like the “strong horse”. Still, there might be a chance. Western air power can certainly pulverize the Libyan air force, and well-placed strikes might make it possible for the rebels to regain the offensive. In a war like this, between amateur, undependable forces, momentum can shift dizzily. Recall how rapidly the Taliban regime disintegrated in Afghanistan in 2001.
The problem is that the President’s statement made it obvious that he has no interest in shifting momentum or driving Qaddhafi from power. Let’s look at what he said:
Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable.
When he was doing nothing, the President declared that Qaddhafi “must go”. Now that he is willing to deploy the armed forces, all that he wants is protection for civilians (those whom Qaddhafi hasn’t already slaughtered) and unspecified “accountability”.
The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Suppose that the regime complies. That outcome would be no victory, merely a de facto partition, to be followed, no doubt, by endless, fruitless negotiations. A cease-fire leaves most of Libya’s population, territory and resources in Qaddhafi’s grip, while the rebels sit in an unviable mini-state.
I have directed Secretary Gates and our military to coordinate their planning, and tomorrow Secretary Clinton will travel to Paris for a meeting with our European allies and Arab partners about the enforcement of Resolution 1973.
At the point when hours count – Qaddhafi’s spearheads are reportedly within 30 miles of Benghazi – we will coordinate and hold meetings. Once that’s all done,
We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone.
In plain English, the United States will furnish no combat forces, only our “unique capabilities”,
[W]e are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal – specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya. In the coming weeks, we will continue to help the Libyan people with humanitarian and economic assistance so that they can fulfill their aspirations peacefully.
Again, ousting Qaddhafi is left off the table, while spending money to prop up the rebel zone is put onto it.
Now, the United States did not seek this outcome. Our decisions have been driven by Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians. It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies, and members of the Arab League, have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it. We are coordinating closely with them. And this is precisely how the international community should work, as more nations bear both the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international law.
And what if those other nations had not taken “a leadership role”? Would “Qaddafi’s refusal to respect the rights of his people, and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians” have “driven” the Obama Administration to take any action? The implied answer is no. In the President’s eyes, the United States of America is the dutiful servant of “the international community”, a golem that sits quietly in the corner till called upon, then returns quietly to its place afterward.
Leaving aside American pride, American ideals, American exceptionalism and all those vulgar, obsolete notions, one still wonders: If the United States has no right to take the lead against a demented, hostile tyrant, why is it okay for Britain and France to do so? Is there something wrong with America that renders us unfit for any role but follower?
I hope no one asks the President that question. I don’t think I’d like his answer.
Update (3/19/11): For those who read French, Le Figaro has continuing Libyan updates. The latest news is that French Rafale and Mirage fighters attacked pro-Qaddhafi forces near Benghazi a few hours ago, “destroying several tanks”. Less encouragingly, the French foreign minister is quoted as “giving assurances that the goal of the operation is not to overthrow Qaddhafi”.
Mr. Obama, is appears, is not only timid himself but a cause of timidity in others.
Comments