Five Reasons it is Premature to Declare Mission Accomplished for Obama's Libya Strategy

Posted By Peter Feaver Monday, August 22, 2011 - 9:19 AM Share

A reporter called me up with the question of the hour: does the apparent fall of the Qaddafi regime vindicate President Barack Obama's "lead from behind" strategy? The administration's most ardent boosters are quick to answer in the affirmative, but there are five reasons why the early spin may not last.

1. The most recent progress happened because NATO shifted course and stepped up military operations, especially American military operations, as critics had been calling for.  As the New York Times spells out, when the administration finally took the critiques on board and stepped up U.S. operations, the stalemate tilted in favor of the rebels.  The previous strategy of doing just a bit less than what was needed was not working and contributed to months of paralysis.

2. The operation took significantly longer than the administration expected, in part because a late entry and other operational choices hobbled early efforts. If the international coalition had joined the rebel cause a week earlier than they did (when rebel forces were initially pressing Tripoli), the Qaddafi regime might have collapsed within days or weeks rather than holding on for months. The late entry, and the contradictory declaratory posture (protecting the citizens, but not supporting the rebels; conducting military operations but promising no ground involvement, etc.) likely limited the impact of the kinetic operations.

3. Because this operation has dragged on, the collapse of the Qaddafi regime is happening as the international coalition is itself running out of steam. It appears that the clock has run out on Qaddafi before it ran out on NATO, but only just barely. The NATO coalition was fraying dramatically, and France and Britain, the two staunchest players, seem about at the end of their Libyan rope. What this means is that there is far less spare international capacity to deal with any problems that emerge in Libya than there would have been if we had reached this culmination point months ago, which is when the administration evidently expected it to be reached.

4. The strategic rationale by which Obama justified the Libya mission runs counter to the operational commitments he has made for the next phase. Obama invoked the "responsibility to protect" principle as the rationale for committing U.S. military forces and prestige to the Libya operation: if we had not acted, there would have been a bloodbath. He has consistently argued, however, that it is the responsibility of the Libyans to provide all of the necessary security to prevent a bloodbath after the fall of Qhaddafy. If the international community, and the United States in particular, had a responsibility to act in March to forestall a possible bloodbath that was not precipitated by U.S. action, why does Obama believe that the United States will have no responsibility to act in August or September if a bloodbath arises out of a power vacuum that our military action catalyzed? Which brings me to....

5. The real test of Obama's Libya operation will be how events play out after Qaddafi is gone. If post-Qaddafi Libya quickly transitions to a stable, representative political order, then the messiness of the last five months will be forgiven and forgotten. If the Obama team's planning for post-Qaddafi Libya is up to the task, that will go a long way to vindicating their approach. But as the George W. Bush administration ruefully knows, as hard as it is to topple a dictator, the really hard part is what comes after.

I understand the administration's desire to spike the ball. It has been an exceptionally difficult August and so any good news anywhere is a reason to celebrate. But I think the administration would be well-advised to mute any celebrations until we see how the next phase plays out.

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, LIBYA
 

WEMEANTWELL

2:25 PM ET

August 22, 2011

Libya: Not Iraq 2.0?

My hope will be that the media will keep an eye on Libya long enough to allow us to see what happens next. The rebels will need to shift from breaking things to fixing things, the key transition that screwed up the American adventure in Iraq. Will they be able to very quickly take control of picking up trash, keeping the water and sewage plants running, funding electrical grid upgrades, making sure teachers, cops, toll collectors and tax officials all show up to work and all the rest of the day-to-day stuff of governing? Will they get sidetracking into settling scores and reprisal killings? Security, stabilization and development done sequentially take far too long in a bubbling post-conflict environment, but are very, very hard to do simultaneously (again, see Iraq).

How conflicts like the Libya campaign will fit into the bigger US geopolitical picture will be able to be judged by the results of such mundane civil tasks. Will the US walk away from Libya in large part, the “tyrant” now gone, uncaring about what happens next as long as the oil flows? It is obvious that the US plans nothing on the scale of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) that set out to fix all those problems in Iraq and Afghanistan and failed miserably. But will the US dump “experts” and money into Libya? Doing so may or may not make things work, but will increase ownership of the problems by the US, something America would most dearly like to avoid. Doing close to nothing will likely ease Libya’s transition into a permanent semi-failed state.

Breaking things is easy, fixing things is hard. The US has mismanaged that problem consistently since 9/11. Let’s see what the play is in Libya to see if anyone in Washington really learned any lessons.

Peter wemeantwell.com

 

VISIONTUNNEL

5:30 AM ET

September 5, 2011

The basic need for peace and order has to come from with in

Whatever USA has done and will do can, will come to nothing or something only if there is will and need to fix things in Libya from with in.

A country till now ran by thugs and hoodlums of Gaddafi, surely must be reeling under leadership vacuum.

The military commander who led the revolutionary forces into Tripoli, and took the iconic bab al-azizziya was Abdul Hakim Belhadj.

Belhadj is one of the most authentic faces of the Libyan revolution.

His opposition to the Gaddafi regime date back to more than 20 years ago. The difference is unlike several of the NTC members who up until and beyond the start of the uprisings were either members of the regime themselves or living far away in the West.

Belhadj has been at the forefront of the struggle both literally- figuratively and rumored to have hand in killing of an important revolution commander.

He has also fought Russians in Afgahsnistn along with other Libyan fighters and also met Osama Bin Laden.

Belhadj was highly influenced by Amir of Jihad- Abdullah Azzam, who had no love for secularism.

Let us see how future rolls in now free Libya, teeming with various tribes and groups opposed to each others along with adherenec to violence being the final arbrtator in the vast barren desert of Libya.

 

PENNFLYER

3:54 PM ET

August 22, 2011

you are well beyond ridiculous

even mentioning Iraq as a false-hued lamentable comparison except in what NEVER AGAIN to do. Has it taken too long for you in Libya? As a result the Libyans now feel and actually have ownership of a fight that was worth fighting for them. We prevented the Iraqis from that because of our testosterone-injected-paternalism. That, my friend, is the WHOLE POINT, and the main reason why Libya will play out in a radically different way, and, just as you foreshadow it yourself -- after all, your whole piece can't be an exercise in willful stupidity, can it? -- "the messiness of the last five months will be forgiven and forgotten."

 

PENNFLYER

4:11 PM ET

August 22, 2011

can you say the same thing for the last 8 years in Iraq?

George Dubya Bush Boulevards there will never be in Iraw. NATO and Obama, on the other hand, will be thanked by Libyans for a long time to come, no matter what happens going forward. They didn't go in like churlish assholes, and I will take bets that they aren't going to start being rash and stupid now that they've come so far. Meanwhile Dick Cheney sits in a corner and grumbles about how little appreciation his benevolent visions have gained in the ungrateful world, how strangely it fails to heed his generosity.

 

WOLFBOY

7:58 PM ET

August 22, 2011

A creative interpretation, Dr. Feaver

To my reading, Dr. Feaver, the NY Times piece you link to does not support your contention that "The most recent progress happened because NATO shifted course and stepped up military operations."

Rather, this piece emphasizes better control and coordination, along with improvement in the capacity of the rebels, and notes that air strikes have actually diminished since the spring, as a review of the NATO data generally confirms (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_71994.htm).

 

KEITH MCDONALD

10:03 PM ET

August 22, 2011

At least

At least this time, U.S. did not initiate conflict. U.S. involvement looks more legitimate when corporate interests are somewhat veiled.

 

DAVIDCEISEN

12:16 PM ET

August 23, 2011

Love it

So Obama gets 6-9 months to liberate Libya and transition to a stable government. I love that the best the right in this country can do is pretend that there was a strategy that would have entailed a perfectly easy transition of power with barely any bloodshed. When can we expect the right to return to reality?

 

WEIWEIYY

2:09 AM ET

August 24, 2011

dfdyfgygyfgu

.http://www.proxy4biz?com
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
Jeans price is $34?Door to Door services!
5 days arrive your home or you

 

EGISTUBAGUS

10:15 PM ET

September 9, 2011

Obama team's planning for post-Qaddafi Libya is up to the task,

If post-Qaddafi Libya quickly transitions to a stable, representative political order, then the messiness of the last five months will be forgiven and forgotten. If the Obama team's planning for post-Qaddafi Libya is up to the task, that will go a long way to vindicating their approach. But as the George W. Bush administration ruefully knows, as hard as it is to topple a dictator, the really hard part is what comes after. Please explain me about above statement?
(gedehumidifier, lgdehumidifier, santafedehumidifier soleusdehumidifier, / soleusdehumidifier, /rubbermaidtrashcans, simplehumantrashcan, simplehumantrashcan/ boschcoffeemaker, topratedcoffeemakers,)

 

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