How to get rid of Qaddafi

Posted By Kori Schake Monday, March 7, 2011 - 5:35 PM Share

The race is on to see which American politicians can argue most forcefully for the use of our military power to assist rebels fighting deranged Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi. Conservatives were early to the argument, eager to help people brave enough to fight for their freedom and understandably frustrated by President Obama's broad encomia lacking any practical assistance to emergent democratic movements in Tunisia and Egypt. Senator John Kerry joined the fray over the weekend, showing the liberals' colors and trying to look worthy of being Secretary of Defense.

The Obama administration conveys its usual contradictory messages, most discouragingly explaining that the threat of force should deter Qaddafi as they backpedal from suggesting any actual use of that force. It is a mystery why the administration would believe an experienced manipulator like Qaddafi wouldn't make us prove it.

The administration compounded their errors by publicly tying any U.S. action to multilateral support they cannot realistically attain, and showing we could be blackmailed into inaction if U.S. diplomats were in country.

But I share Secretary Gates's hesitance to use military means to affect the battles in Libya, principally because I see no sign the president has anywhere near the commitment to solve this problem that would merit getting Libyan hopes up or putting American service members at risk.

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell judiciously pointed out, we know little about the anti-Qaddafi rebels. We're still combating weapons we gave the mujaheddin to fight Soviets in Afghanistan, and dealing with the radicalization of that society from civil war. Libyan rebels do not appear lacking in weaponry, as military units have defected bringing their equipment, and Libyans are creatively using the means available to them (like bulldozers). Libyan military forces remaining in the Qaddafi camp don't look particularly proficient, missing munitions dumps and being fought to a standstill by untrained irregulars. And Qaddafi has not yet crossed the threshold of using to maximum effect the destructive means in his control.

This suggests Qaddafi's abdication is a problem better managed by soft power than the use of military force. Our goal should be to get Qaddafi to leave and persuade the people keeping him in power not to do so. The administration seems stuck in a punitive mindset, freezing assets and condemning, but has done little that would convince Qaddafi there is a way other than fighting to the finish. Where is the "smart power" this administration argued would put the State Department back in the lead of American national security policy? Former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley (full disclosure: my former boss) suggested offering the $30 billion in frozen Libyan assets as a rebuilding fund, releasable to Libyans who oppose Qaddafi; the administration has proposed nothing so creative or likely to induce the ebbing of support from Qaddafi's ranks.

Perhaps behind the scenes, our diplomats are negotiating with Qaddafi to flee the country, paralleling the good that President Reagan did in convincing President Ferdinand Marcos to accept asylum and leave the Philippines to a hopeful democratic future. That would involve morally unsatisfying compromises, but it would be good for the people of Libya. It would also be less costly and less destructive to relationships, especially in the Middle East, that the United States needs to manage other problems, like combating terrorism.

The Obama administration is going to miss the tide yet again unless it begins floating more creative ideas than just economic sanctions and international investigation. They ought to be focusing effort on peeling supporters away from Qaddafi and helping him develop an exit strategy.

Getty Images

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, DISPATCH FROM THE REVOLUTION, LIBYA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 

SCOOP

2:19 PM ET

March 8, 2011

Dithering while Libya burns...

Discord grows over possible Libya intervention
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER, New York Times, 3/8/2011

"Nearly three weeks after Libya erupted in what may now turn into a protracted civil war, the politics of military intervention to speed the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi grow more complicated by the day. Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. At the same time, there are persistent voices — in Congress and even inside the administration — arguing that Mr. Obama is moving too slowly. They contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq."

 

SCOOP

4:08 PM ET

March 8, 2011

America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels

Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent, Monday, 7 March 2011

"Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a 'day of rage' from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago. But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis."

 

SCOOP

4:22 PM ET

March 8, 2011

NATO Places Unblinking Eyes Over Libya, 24-7

By Spencer Ackerman, Danger Room, March 8, 2011

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates and White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley aren’t so eager to stop Moammar Gadhafi’s aircraft from attacking Libyan rebels. But not only is NATO still considering a no-fly zone over Libya, it’s placing its eyes in the sky over the country, around the clock. Even without a UN resolution, NATO has decided to step up surveillance flights of AWACS planes over the Mediterranean to 24 hours a day (NATO’s got its own AWACS aircraft, so it wouldn’t require sending additional U.S. planes.) With the powerful radar aboard AWACS near or over Libya, NATO could conceivably coordinate an air campaign, keep tabs on where Libyan planes are, and monitor movements of pro-Gadhafi forces and weaponry on the ground."

 

WOLFBOY

2:36 AM ET

March 10, 2011

Blackmail

Your over-eagerness to find fault with the current administration is showing, Dr. Schake.

How else could what is - by your own description - a case of inaction both before and after the departure of US diplomats amount to evidence that "we could be blackmailed into inaction if U.S. diplomats were in country. "

 

CROMAGNUM

3:21 PM ET

March 22, 2011

Disarm

I can think of a very simple way to end dictatorships, at least ones that have no effective, internal WMD programs.
Cut off the weapons supplies.
But that will never happen, because Wall Street and the rest of the 'profit-before-life' market ideologists would never allow peace to interfere with a profit cow like the weapons trade.
As long as there a profit to be made, there will be armed conflicts, fueled by the morally-bereft.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More