War is like a forest fire on a breezy, summer afternoon. It’s easy to get one going, but then…
From the beginning of the meltdown in the Middle East, the White House has seemed to want to do—or at least say—something meaningful about the situation. In this endeavor, it has failed abysmally.
Though it has mouthed general platitudes about freedom, the Administration vacillated even when it comes to talking tough. At times the State Department has walked back White House comments. Sometimes the White House walks back State remarks.
At no time has the Administration laid out anything resembling a long-range vision for the region or a long-range strategy for nudging the region toward that vision. As for a strategy for getting ahead of any one particular crisis—say, the battle for Libya—fuhgeddabowdit!
Now come reports that the president wants–and has received –UN Security Council authorization for airstrikes to save the Libyan rebellion from being rolled by government forces.
If the President had really wanted to have “all options on the table,” running to the UN Security Council to demand a resolution was the last thing he should have done. The security council resolution prevents anyone from doing anything. Now he will have to beg/bribe China and Russia before they will sign off on a permission slip to use force.
This is not to say the U.S. should just send in the bombers. The biggest problem with just blasting away is that it won’t end the fighting. The regime won’t give up if they lose their air force. Likewise, even with air support, the opposition won’t quickly topple the regime.
What if we don’t intervene in the unfriendly skies of Libya? The opposition may just to stick it out. To finish off the rebels, government forces will have to engage in house-to-house urban warfare. That’s no easy task, especially when your foe is fighting with its back against the wall.
The worst part about what have heard from the White House is no sign of a plan. A few bombs from the air won’t be the end of this. There never has been a conflict where dropping a few bombs solved anything. If the president is going to put American treasure, lives, and credibility on the line in Libya, there must first be a credible scheme that defines our objectives and lays out how we’ll reach them. And remember Iraq, please have a Plan B.
Dr. Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of State, has outlined four conditions for U.S. support that made sense:
1. The target of our military support is limited to the Qaddafi regime;
2. The rebels are free of extremist elements and are fully cooperative with us;
3. We rule out supplying arms (“Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, for example) that could pose a potent threat to U.S. forces if they end up in the hands of terrorists; and
4. We require the rebel chain of command to take precautions to ensure that weapons we supply are not sold or diverted to other groups.
Before the White House starts picking targets, Americans ought to have an assurance that at least these four steps have been taken.
Big Peace
