One good thing about the military action in Libya – it diverts our attention from the alarming news that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to take over Egypt. This entirely predictable outcome was dismissed early on by those eager to unseat President Mubarak – our ally of 30 years – even though it was clear from the start that the Brotherhood was the only group sufficiently organized to quickly mount a political campaign.
Business leaders in Egypt warned of this possibility; while championing democratic advances, they cautioned against driving Mubarak from office or insisting on hasty elections. It isn’t clear whether the Obama administration reached out to the business community – arguably the most important stabilizing force in Egypt. Americans might be appalled that the perceptive maneuvering of our ace State Department may enable a violently anti-American terrorist group to rule over the most populous Arab nation. It might make them nervous about possible outcomes in Libya, such as a protracted quagmire.
It was reported in the Financial Times this morning that NATO’s military committee agreed last night to take over command of the war in Libya. It was said to have “approved plans unanimously to broaden the mission to include ground attacks on Col Gaddafi’s forces if they threaten civilians in rebel-held cities.” Doesn’t that sound like boots on the ground? President Obama and his team have reassured us that the United States will not enter into another drawn-out conflict in the region. This decision by the NATO military leaders appears likely to usher in just such an engagement.
Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates warmed up the U.S. audience in anticipation of President Obama’s address to the nation this evening. They made a strong case for preventing the slaughter of civilians while acknowledging that Libya is not a vital national interest for the U.S. The dedication to protecting innocents appears a legacy from Mrs. Clinton’s husband, who regrets his failure to intercede in Rwanda. While our reluctance to engage in Rwanda was lamentable, it is not sufficient reason for us to go to war with Libya. Surely President Clinton can find solace elsewhere. Our humanitarianism also appears selective; so far, reports of civilians killed in Libya do not appear much greater than those gunned down in Syria or in Bahrain. As Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haas points out in an op-ed today, Gaddafi’s threats to show opponents “no mercy” might have been just that – threats.
As a senator, and on the campaign trail, President Obama was extremely critical of his predecessor’s engagement in the discretionary war in Iraq, and of course of George W. Bush’s headstrong “my way or the highway” approach to leadership. As Bush made clear, other countries were either for us or against us. That sort of cowboy rhetoric may be off-putting, but it certainly is unambiguous. Maybe it actually was helpful in defining the choice; Bush’s “coalition of the willing” numbered 31 countries – more than the number allied with us in Libya. (For the record, Bush also consulted Congress, which Obama astonishingly bypassed.) As was the case in Iraq, in Libya the U.S. is the dominant player. Going forward, we will doubtless continue to be the dominant player. If there are attacks against Gaddafi’s ground troops, our forces will almost assuredly be involved.
Tonight, Obama will need to explain why this mission is important enough to endanger even one American soldier. He will need to convince us that it is diplomatically essential for American soldiers to serve under another country’s commander – and that he or she is safe doing so. He will also need to address how we get out of this mess, and how our urge to protect innocent civilians is not an open-ended commitment to more kinetic military engagements. He will also have to explain why this should be the nation’s top priority; our economic welfare might appear paramount to most war-weary Americans.
