White House spin on Libya a bit too triumphalist and dismissive of previous coalitions

Posted By Peter Feaver Thursday, August 25, 2011 - 12:26 PM Share

Josh Rogin has a fascinating interview with White House national security communicator Ben Rhodes elsewhere on this site. To my eyes, it reads like the Obama Administration is continuing its unseemly end-zone dance of celebration over the toppling of Qaddafi. I understand their desire to get maximum credit while avoiding a "mission accomplished" photo-op that will come back to haunt them, and so far sympathetic reporters are obliging by reporting the braggadocio without editorializing about it much. But this interview dances close to the line of generating some "audio ops" that they may regret.

First, I am not sure that Rhodes has threaded the needle in terms of both taking credit for the things the administration did, without which this regime change would not have happened, and convincingly eschewing responsibility for whatever bad things happen from this point out. Rhodes tries to persuade the interviewer that there are only upsides to Obama's approach when in reality there are pros and cons. One of the cons is that the administration bears more responsibility for what happens next than it is willing to admit, while having less leverage over what happens next than it is willing to admit. In the long run, it may be the case that the pros will outweigh the cons in Libya, but there is a substantial amount of territory to cover between now and then and it is premature to declare this the model for all future operations. (By the way, I wish Rogin had asked Rhodes the obvious follow-up question: does this mean that the Obama Administration endorses the Doug Feith plan of light-footprint regime change in Iraq using Iraqi expats and rejects the conventional critique which holds that the Iraq operation unraveled because there were insufficient troops in the coalition invasion force and they did not establish sufficient order in the aftermath?)

Second, Rhodes continues a longstanding Democrat slur against the several dozen allies who fought, bled, and died at the American side in Afghanistan and Iraq:

Secondly, we put an emphasis on burden sharing, so that the U.S. wasn't bearing the brunt of the burden and so that you had not just international support for the effort, but also meaningful international contributions.

If I were a parent or loved one of any of the hundreds of allied soldiers who died -- according to iCasualties.org, some 179 UK troops alone in Iraq and 379 UK troops in Afghanistan -- the crack about "meaningful international contributions" would greatly anger me. In any case, it seems in exceptionally bad taste. I have never understood why Bush critics have gotten away with denigrating the contributions of allies in those two wars. Now that the critics are in office and directly responsible for maintaining good relations with our allies, I wish they would find more opportunities to praise the sacrifices that the allies made and make fewer derogatory comments about those coalition efforts.

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:FLASH POINTS, LIBYA, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 

IAMNOTHERE

5:26 PM ET

August 25, 2011

Let me get this straiht ...

You're offended with you president on behalf of the U.K.?

You're a true "patriot" of the times.

With patriots like you, ....

 

FRENCHCONNECTION

5:29 PM ET

August 25, 2011

one third

of the casualties in Afghanistan are non-US. After the UK, Canada and France paid the heaviest price.

 

WOLFBOY

6:37 PM ET

August 25, 2011

Get over it Dr. Feaver

Must you view everything through the lens of criticism the Bush administration faced in connection with Iraq? This seems to me the most straightforward explanation for this marginally coherent rant.

I saw nothing approaching an "end-zone dance" in the piece you link to. You really ought to specifically substantiate such accusations.

Why on earth should endorsement of the principle that "it's far more legitimate and effective for regime change to be pursued by an indigenous political movement than by the United States or foreign powers" require rejection of "the conventional critique which holds that the Iraq operation unraveled because there were insufficient troops in the coalition invasion force and they did not establish sufficient order in the aftermath" I see no conflict whatsoever between the two, and I had thought that the latter was so well established by now as to be beyond denying by all but the dead-enders.

Finally, why do you insist on interpreting the remark about "meaningful international contributions" as a "crack" intended to denigrate our allies in Afghanistan, and the UK in Iraq? This is a perfectly straightforward comment that can be interpreted perfectly well without reference to those other countries. Moreover, even if there were an intent to denigrate the Iraq coalition -which is far from clear - I am aware of no reason to imagine that this would mean denigrating the contribution of the UK specifically. I think Iraq critics recognize the significant UK sacrifices in that war, and criticize that coalition as being overwhelmingly restricted to two countries. If there has been substantial criticism of the magnitude of the UK's contribution in Iraq I am not aware of it, and challenge you to produce it before you repeat such scurrious charges.

 

NICOLAS19

7:38 AM ET

August 26, 2011

you shouldn't be surprised

Obama has played this game all along in his wars.

When it came to responsibility, it was always "shared", the war was waged by an "alliance", an "international coalition", fueled by "international contributions".

Yet when a victory is claimed, Obama champions he and himself only, always insisting that America "led", America did the "heavy lifting" and it was only his wise and exceptional leadership that shepherded those little allies to be of some use...errr.... to provide meaningful assistance.

He should be tried for war crimes.

 

MYCANDY

9:09 PM ET

August 30, 2011

I completely agree. He tries

I completely agree. He tries far to hard to pass the buck and hide from the responsibilities of his choices. Like every modern figure head.
maine homes

 

JEFFB2066

6:11 PM ET

August 29, 2011

Regime changes

The regime change in Iraq was so bloody and difficult because there wasn't anyone around who could unite the nation effectively before or after Hussein was removed. No one could rally the support to throw him out, so it was either an outside power (the UN or US or Iran or an army of pixies from neverneverland) or he stayed in power until one of his sons killed him and then there's another psychotic ruler in power.

Afghanistan had someone who could have united a majority of the people, but he was killed just a couple of months before the alliance went in. (He was the leader of the Northern Alliance.)

I was in Iraq in 1991, with the coalition forces that drove Iraq out of Kuwait. I had no desire to be involved in urban warfare in downtown Bagdad... but now that I'm older and a little wiser, part of me wishes we had gone in back then and arrested Hussein. I mean, we already knew he had been using nerve agent on his own citizens, an act of mass murder AND a major violation of international weapons bans. Didn't he also use mustard gas on Iranians during that 8-year-long war? But then, who would have been put in his place to lead Iraq???

 

EGISTUBAGUS

10:40 PM ET

September 9, 2011

it may be the case that the pros will outweigh the cons in Liby

. In the long run, it may be the case that the pros will outweigh the cons in Libya, but there is a substantial amount of territory to cover between now and then and it is premature to declare this the model for all future operations.
please explain me more about this?gliderforbaby, glidersfornursery, littlecastlegliders, beststeamiron, electricteapot, biometricsafe , nurserychairs, glidersfornurserygedehumidifier, lgdehumidifier, mielecoffeemaker, vikingcoffeemaker

 

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