President Obama's Libya War Challenges

President Obama speaks in Chile on March 21, 2011 —White House

The Libya war is going just swimmingly, militarily. Unfortunately, it’s more of a political war than a military one. If military might were the sole arbiter of the outcome, any alliance led by the U.S. would triumph. No one comes close to matching our military strength. But as we have learned after a decade in Afghanistan, firepower is rarely a key to victory.

So three days into Operation Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. military wins the Oscar for Best Actor, the Brits get the nod for Best Supporting Actor, and every other member of the alliance is a bit player (sorry, France) in this theater of war. Qatar’s four French-built Mirage jets — which its pilots plan to fly alongside France’s — are cited as evidence of Arab backing for the campaign, with additional Arab players to be named later. The Arab League is suddenly restless, and grumbling from China and Russia is on the rise.

The bitter partisanship that has characterized Capitol Hill for the past two decades cuts a President no slack beyond the water’s edge — especially when it comes to declaring war, which is a power vested firmly, and solely, in Congress (according to that pesky Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution). Congress has been “sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress,” Senator James Webb, a Virginia Democrat and former Navy Secretary and Marine, complained on Monday on MSNBC.

An AV-8B readies for war aboard the U.S.S. Kearsarge —U.S. Department of Defense

It’s an especially lousy time to start a war in the Muslim world. After decades of supporting autocrats who guaranteed the U.S. stability — and stable oil prices — change is sweeping the region. Bad guys, like Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, are being caught in the riptide, as are our guys: see King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa in Bahrain and President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen. Our allies are killing their people, perhaps with weapons and training provided by U.S. taxpayers. On Monday in Chile, President Obama embraced the military action he ordered in Libya and added, “Across the region, we believe that the legitimate aspirations of people must be met and that violence against civilians is not the answer.” Bahrain and Yemen didn’t come up.

U.S. military leaders from Defense Secretary Robert Gates (“I think we’ve made good progress”) to Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (“The initial operations have been very effective”) to the Army general in charge of the campaign, Carter Ham (“Our actions, to date, are generally achieving the intended objective”), are unanimous in their declaration of so far, so good.

So it’s up to Obama to draw to an inside straight (or insert your favorite gambling metaphor here). All wars are rolls of the dice, to be sure, but sometimes you get a better hand than what Obama self-dealt. Because even if the U.S. military and its window-dressing allies (132 cruise missiles have been fired into Libya; the U.S. now leads Britain, 124 to 8, in that category) do everything right, the outcome is beyond their control.

Here are the challenges going forward:

• Protecting Libyan civilians without taking out Gaddafi will be tough. The U.S. finds itself in a box of its own making. It wanted international support to protect civilians and to get rid of Gaddafi but could win U.N. approval only for the former. That came after two weeks of foot dragging, which allowed Gaddafi to regain momentum on the battlefield and retake ground won by the rebels. Multiple officials have declared — perhaps a little too declaratively — that killing Gaddafi or forcing him out of power isn’t on their formal, U.N.-approved to-do list. But it’s certainly high on their informal desirable-outcome roster.

And while it’s relatively easy for allied warplanes to destroy tanks and armored personnel carriers as they move along routes from city to city, they really can’t do that once the vehicles are in urban areas. “The identification and the distinction of forces in very close quarters is a particular challenge for us,” Ham said on Monday.

• The U.S. is in a rush to hand off the day-to-day leadership of the operation. But once Gaddafi’s air-defense network is bombed into rubble — and the U.S. hands over control to Britain, France or some combination of allies — stalemate is a real possibility. Gaddafi could become holed up in Tripoli, with the rebels in charge in Benghazi. Allied warplanes overhead would keep Gaddafi’s forces from retaking Benghazi, while the rebels’ lack of training and weapons would keep them from taking Tripoli. Such a standoff could persist for years.

“There’s going to be a transition taking place in which we are one of the partners among many who are going to ensure that that no-fly zone is enforced,” Obama said, placing the U.S. alongside lesser states. Unfortunately, any alliance in which the U.S. plays a role is inescapably a U.S.-led alliance. Call it the superpower tax.

• This is Obama’s first war. He was in on the takeoff, and he will be held responsible for a smooth landing. That is unlikely to happen so long as Gaddafi remains in power, even if his realm is only greater Tripoli. There’s a reason “Cut off the head of the snake” is a popular refrain in bad neighborhoods.

Obama noted on Monday that “it is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go.” But then he made the eyebrow-raising comment that his ability to order the U.S. military to force Gaddafi from power was trumped by the U.N. resolution that limits military forces to protecting Libyan civilians. “We are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate,” he said.

But, he stressed, the U.S. has other tools in its holster. “We were very rapid in initiating unilateral sanctions and then helping to mobilize international sanctions against the Gaddafi regime,” Obama said. “We froze assets that Gaddafi might have used to further empower himself and purchase weapons or hire mercenaries that might be directed against the Libyan people.” The U.S. has imposed such punishments against Cuba, Iran and North Korea for decades with scant effect.

Related Topics: libya, obama, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • shepherdwong

    Congress has been “sort of on autopilot for almost 10 years now, in terms of presidential authority, in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress,” Sen. James Webb, a Virginia Democrat, former Navy secretary, and former Marine, complained Monday on MSNBC.
    .
    Hahahahahaha. I guess Jim would just as soon forget a certain “police action” he participated in about four decades ago. You know, the one that resulted in the War Powers Resolution.
    .
    After our recent history, I thought it would be impossible to say this but I’ve never heard so much hypocritical carping and hand-wringing in my life. Unf@cking believable.
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action

  • abdullah69

    At what point does the US get to understand that the use of force has very limited success in the pursuit of foreign policy. How many Koreas, Vietnams, Somalias, Afghanistans and Iraqs does it take? If the US spent three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on the State Department, then the world would look exactly the way the US wanted.
    Of course, the defence contractors would be miffed………

  • textee

    Look at what one militant, virulent, anti-American leftist said in December 2007:

    “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    “As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.” http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

    Guess who that anti-America militant is? Hint: He’s an uber darling of the Washington/New York/American press corps (they share identical ideologies); he knows nothing about anything; and he’s got big ears.

    I’d bet my last penny that not a single one of said militant’s useful idiots in the Washington/New York/American press corps has any idea of what he said in December 2007.

  • abdullah69

    “He knows nothing about anything and he’s got big ears.”

    The answer has to be either Mickey Mouse or Rudi Giuliani.

  • Cliff

    Protecting civilians without taking out Muammar Gaddafi will be tough. … It wanted international support to protect civilians — and to get rid of Gaddafi — but could only win UN approval for the former.
    .
    Really? We’re going in to protect civilians?
    Why not Bahrain, then, or Yemen? Why not Myanmar, or Darfur, or Mexico?
    .
    Mexico borders us, and loads of civilians are dying there. I don’t see forging a Coalition of the Willing to go kick ass there.
    .
    So what sets Libya apart from all these other places?
    .
    It’s obvious to anyone who cares to look that the answer is oil, which only gets a single cursory mention in your piece:
    .
    After decades of supporting autocrats who guaranteed the U.S. stability – and stable oil prices – change is sweeping the region.
    .
    So the real question is, why did oil only get brought up once here?
    .
    Why is the “oil” the word that the press dare not speak when they talk about Libya?

  • newfreedomblog

    – Protecting civilians without taking out Muammar Gaddafi will be tough. The U.S. finds itself in a box of its own making.
    .
    – The U.S. is in a rush to hand off the day-to-day leadership of the operation. But once Gaddafi’s air-defense network is bombed into rubble – and the U.S. hands over control to Britain, France or some combination of allies – stalemate is a real possibility.
    .
    – This is Obama’s first war. He was in on the takeoff, and he will be held responsible for a smooth landing.

    .
    - Why? Why are we now in the business of “protecting” civilians from other countries in a Civil War? An “up-rising” not of our making? Thank God it wasn’t China if that is our new foreign policy under this administration.
    .
    - Stalemate would be a great way to end this as the worst case scenario? Who thinks that Gaddafi will just say, “oh you guys, I know you really didn’t mean to bomb my tent for a 2nd time in the past 40 years now did you?” Osama bin Laden didn’t have a country under his thumb prior to his escapades did he? He may have had a billion dollars to fund his fledgling Al-Qaeda group in the beginning, but I would think not much more than that. Gaddafi, what is his net worth these days? 40? 50? 60 billion? If he is not taken out, along with his sons, what do you think the possibilities of them coming back for revenge someday? When people like the Gaddafi’s lose all of or most of their giant hords of wealth, they get really pi$$ed off.
    .
    - Held responsible? You mean like George Bush II has been held responsible, or like Bill Clinton has been held responsible?

  • shepherdwong

    So the real question is, why did oil only get brought up once here?”
    .
    Another might be: how does attacking the current regime, ostensibly to prevent it from massacring part of the population, help Exxon-Mobile get access to Libyan oil.

  • http://gbcherry.wordpress.com/ Greg

    “Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity”- George Carlin

  • http://tisias.wordpress.com tisias

    Well doesn’t the president have some temporary 60 days of military action before he talks to Congress? And the legality can go either way. The President is the civilian leader, but he is also the commander in chief.
    .
    Mark, would you care to elaborate on the limitations and priviledges that the POTUS has legally on military action?

blog comments powered by Disqus