Libya: another uninspiring victory for no-drama Obama

Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham can’t help but enthuse about the fall of Tripoli. It’s increasingly dangerous to be an interventionist in the Republican Party. But, it’s less dangerous to be one when liberators are seen closing in on a tyrant.

They can stand with NATO and freedom fighters in Libya. But acknowledging Barack Obama’s un-dramatic staying power was too much to swallow:

“This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

Click on: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ef07da62-0100-107e-d7ac-08531bd793e5

It’s that damnable balanced approach of Obama's again.

Instead of backing French and British leadership in an intervention they initiated, Obama should have invited them to stand aside after a couple of weeks and taken charge of a blatant over-reach of the mission’s UN mandate. Americans could have dropped all the bombs, taken all the risks, and been accused alone for hundreds of further civilian casualties. Instead of Kaddafi railing against “Christian” and NATO invaders he could have concentrated on “US imperialists.”

McCain and Graham should be relieved that the Libya campaign is coming to a successful conclusion. They were becoming increasingly isolated in a Party that is increasingly isolationist. (House Republicans had already voted to cut off funding and the grass roots had already started talking about impeaching Obama over abusing his executive authority.)

 An Obama failure on Libya would have been—as an Obama failure on the debt-ceiling showdown would have been—a dangerous setback for moderates in the Republican Party.

It’s mean-spirited to begrudge the President any place in the immanent success of the Libya operation—a success that will be achieved without extravagant sacrifice and with careful attention to America’s broader interests.

Obama’s Libya speech: selling multilateralism at home and America abroad

Obama takes his time to express himself and irrevocably commit himself politically. He’s been called a follower on healthcare and the deficit and, over the last few weeks, on Libya. However, these three challenges all require co-operation with others—others who like to get attention as well. Managing multi-party relations makes grandstanding counter-productive. Fortunately for Obama the storyteller formally addressing Libya after much of the dust has settled allowed him to bolster his new foreign policy with concrete success on the ground.

Obama has transferred military responsibility to a competent alliance, strengthened a comprehensive economic boycott of Libya and, of more broad importance, turned America into a potential friend rather than an alien fiend amongst young Arabs.

NATO is now accountable for grinding down Kadhafi’s military power and political credibility. NATO may not sound as sexy as “Desert Storm.” However, it is dogged and it is the most successful military alliance of the last two centuries. Lines in the desert may move back and forth for awhile but a stalemate is unlikely.

Obama made it clear that the US and the alliance want to force Kadhafi out of power. The steady application of military and economic pressure should work. It doesn’t really matter whether Kadhafi is insane or wily. No governing machine that has enjoyed and indulged in power for over 40 years can survive for long without large, fresh supplies of cash and reasonable assurance of future personal security. Old favours and sentiment will not for long protect Kadhafi and his inner circle when everyone else’s interests lie elsewhere.

Obama offered a vivid illustration of how pleasant it is to be using force the way others want:   

“Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high.  Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya.  Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country –- this American did not find enemies.  Instead, he was met by people who embraced him.  One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends.  We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.”

Finally, Obama’s more modest approach to the exercise of American power doesn’t seem any longer to be that alien to Americans. Before his speech, The Pew Research Centre found:

Notably, most people do not view the United States as the lead actor in the military operation. Fully 57% say that the United States “is just one of a coalition of countries” involved in the military mission; far fewer (35%) say the United States “is leading the military action.”`

Click on: http://people-press.org/report/721/

Libya and the transformation of America’s foreign policy

In the fog of war it’s foolhardy to predict how military intervention in Libya will influence the next presidential election. However, Obama’s decisions to support UN sanctioned military action over Libya, rule out US ground troops and head off to Brazil to strengthen American exports are historic: the US has turned a page in its history. Rather than lead the charge, Obama has harnessed himself to the messy management practices of multilateralism. Rather than lead the parade, he kept a promise to visit South America to improve US commercial interests.  

This more modest course for the world’s only super power isn’t being undertaken with flashy decisiveness and is getting mixed reviews. Now that he’s acted, many worry that he’s gone to far. And before he acted, many more were embarrassed. He’s been criticized for not offering an ambitious American war objective and, at the same time, for not securing more Arab allies. Earlier, America was accused of going AWOL, leaving a “vacancy and the top of the world.” Senator Lindsay Graham’s tongue in-cheek sarcasm was forgivably brilliant: “One test in foreign policy—at least be as bold as the French. When it comes to Libya, we’re failing that test.”

The camera loves a leader waving a pistol. But the times have changed. Obama may end his presidency with more blood on his hands than Ronald Reagan. But, at least he knows that he can’t afford to keep up payments on that mythic white horse that great leaders are supposed to like to ride.

Obama is still expected to keep up appearances and quick success in Libya would make it much easier for his administration to continue to trim America’s overextended reach. Conversely, offering no help to those who appear to embrace—many at the risk of their lives—the idea of living in a more liberal society could have had dangerous and demoralizing consequences. There is no civilization on the planet that wants to throw away the emerging transnational human rights of the 20^th century and free the tyrants to do whatever they want. Simply not being a bully is not all that is being asked of America.

Yet, it’s a bit unnerving that the three major powers that are undertaking this potentially expensive military action—the US, France, and Great Britain—are in very bad shape financially, while two of the powers that demurred—Germany and China—are effectively bankrolling the others.

The dramas in the Middle East, in Europe, in South America and in Asia cannot be re-scripted by American leadership. It may be prideful to even talk about managing the process more smoothly. Yet, Obama has taken some promising steps: the US is still engaged and is renewing old friendship and finding new allies.

Alliance building is different than alliance leading. As Canadians and other friends of the US already know, sometimes it requires getting involved in international problems without any enthusiasm or deferring to peacocks for the sake of a joint enterprise. Looking less bold at the rehearsals than the President of France is trivial—so long as America’s politics can generate workable responses to America’s problems and pressing global issues.