The United
States, its allies, and its coalition partners have been at war for over a week
now. For political, ideological, and legal reasons, the White House is
reluctant to use the terminology of warfare, so Obama administration spokesman Jay
Carney resorted to acts of linguistic contortion, terming the conflict "kinetic
military action" and "time-limited, scope-limited military action." But make no mistake; we are at war. If we
are to prevail, we must be clear-headed in articulating our aims and
formulating a strategy to meet them.
Like most, I'm eager to hear what President
Obama has to say in his speech on Libya tonight. As someone who has devoted
the better part of his career teaching and practicing strategy, here are four
questions I will be looking to him to answer.
What
changed? For a month, as opposition to
the Qaddafi regime in Libya swelled, Obama and his advisors pooh-poohed the
notion of a no-fly-zone over Libya. Then, a week and a half ago, with momentum having
shifted in favor of Qaddafi and his mercenaries, he seemingly had a sudden change
of heart. I, like others, will be looking to the president for an explanation
as to why military action makes sense now, as opposed to two weeks ago.
What are our
aims? What is our strategy? The great
Prussian philosopher of war, Carl von Clausewitz, wrote nearly two centuries
ago, "No one starts a war -- or rather, no one in his senses ought to do
so -- without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that
war and how he intends to conduct it." It appears that we have done just
that.
I'm looking to the president's speech to
articulate a coherent set of political objectives and a strategy to achieve
them. To date, the administration has advanced different, even conflicting,
aims. Obama has stated that Qaddafi must go, suggesting that the ultimate goal
of the United States is regime change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has argued
that the conflict is a particularly violent form of humanitarian intervention. The
strategies to achieve these aims are different, even contradictory. Both,
however, presage a protracted commitment to the region. Qaddafi, a man who has
American blood on his hands and thrives on confrontation with the West, cannot
be expected to go quietly into the night. An administration that has made a
point of avoiding open-ended commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan now appears to
have embraced one in Libya, a country of lesser strategic consequence. I'll be
listening tonight to here why.
How will
this war end? Clausewitz
also counseled soldiers and statesmen not to take the first step before
considering the last. In this vital strategic task, the Obama administration
also appears to have failed. In a thoughtful
piece in the Washington Post, Gideon
Rose points to the need to articulate a vision for the future of Libya. President
Obama had an opportunity to recover somewhat and put U.S. military action in
context. Let's see if he does.
To date, the Obama administration's conduct
of the war with Libya has been a lesson in how not to formulate and implement
strategy. There is still, however, time to recover. And recovery should begin
with a clearly articulated set of political objectives and a strategy to
achieve them. Let's hope we get them.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE