On the first day of the military attacks on Libya, U.S. President Barack Obama took great pains to emphasize that the intervention in Libya would not be a U.S. operation. Instead, he outlined the intended support role of the U.S. in what was to be an “international effort” led by a “broad coalition” of forces. In fact, President Obama did not even personally announce the beginning of the third U.S. war in the Muslim world, delegating the task to secretary of state Hillary Clinton.
Anxiously deferring to its allies and playing down its position is not the way the U.S. has traditionally begun a war. Over the weeks preceding UN air strikes on Libya, the administration has come under criticism for its relative inaction in allowing the tides of democracy to waver in Africa at such a crucial juncture. John McCain has argued that Obama waited too long to intervene, while Sarah Palin criticized Obama’s approach as “dithering.” Michael Gerson of the Washington Post characterized Obama’s response in harsh terms: “the reaction hesitant, the process chaotic, the outcome late.” Granted, it may be true that the delayed U.S. response has emboldened Gaddafi’s defiance and caused Libyan opposition to lose ground. These criticisms, however, ignore the local and international ramifications of a unilateral American war that led to such failures as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All things considered, the U.S.’s adoption of a support role is in fact appropriate. The postponed U.S. position has allowed the international community to reach a consensus as to the legitimacy of intervention; furthermore, the U.S.’s role as supporter rather than leader will help prevent the perception of this intervention as another American crusade.
It should be recognized that the Libyan unrest is as much a European and Arab problem as it is an American problem, and thus any effort to resolve the Libyan crisis must involve meaningful input and resources from European and Arab states. Europe has high economic and military stakes in maintaining the stability of the region: 1800 kilometers of the Mediterranean coastline belong to Libya, and 85 percent of Libya’s oil exports are exported to Europe. Likewise, the Arab states are geographically, culturally, and politically tied to Libya, and Libya is itself a member of the Arab League. The U.S. should not have to carry the burden of military action that benefits all free nations in the world. It is the shared responsibility of all nations with economic and political stakes in Libya to step up and play a role in resolving the crisis.
By delaying the American response, the U.S. has gained reliable allies in its mission, as European and Arab nations realize the potential impact of Libyan unrest on their national interests if they do not act. Not only has the case for intervention acquired political support from the Arab League, but it has also secured legal approval from the U.N. with a 10-0 Security Council vote, and allowed the lead to be taken by France and Britain, sponsors of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 calling for a no-fly zone. Such a deferrential and non-dominating response has in fact been advantageous, given the potentially disastrous consequences of the alternate path of action, unilateral military action in Libya.
This alternate path is unrealistic: the U.S. cannot handle a third full-scale war. Had the U.S. taken initiative and unilaterally intervened at the start of the armed rebellion, the situation would have degenerated into another American crusade, much like in Afghanistan or Iraq. U.S. forces are already too strained in Afghanistan and Iraq to take on another all-out military intervention. Financially, the cruise missiles fired over Libya by the second evening of the attack have already cost $1 million. With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and another 47,000 troops in Iraq, it is not militarily feasible to sustain a risky, open-ended commitment in the long term.
Historically, it has been difficult for the U.S. to successfully intervene without the support of the international community. Quick and easy victories such as the Gulf War are rare. More often, interventionist wars lacking in international support such as those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Vietnam quickly evolve into a stalemate that protracts for years. In Libya itself, unilateral U.S. sanctions in 1982 failed to change Gaddafi’s policies. Later, in 1986, the U.S. swiftly launched unilateral air strikes against Libya ten days after the Berlin Discotheque Bombing. The air strikes not only failed to cripple Gaddafi, who announced a spectacular “military victory”, but garnered widespread international criticism Over the last 40 years, it has become clear that the U.S. cannot overthrow Gaddafi by itself.
In addition, a decisive decision to intervene would have led to the perception that the U.S. was orchestrating the downfall of the Gaddafi government. It would have given ground to Gaddafi’s accusations in speeches at Tahrir Square as well as interviews with international news media that the protests were a “colonialist plot”. Such anti-colonialist sentiments have the potential to be very effective in influencing public opinion in many postcolonial countries. An example of this is the U.S.’s 1993 intervention in Somalia to end the starvation of thousands, which was met with increased hostility, rather than gratitude, as the U.S. became more and more embroiled in the nation-building effort.
Furthermore, any U.S.-led invasions may arouse strong anti-American sentiment that could facilitate the political rise of al-Qaeda elements in the region. Al-Qaeda may act to fill the political vacuum resulting from the Libyan chaos if its anti-American rhetoric is successful in appealing to ordinary Libyans. Al-Qaeda franchises such as AQIM (Al-Qaeda in Maghreb) and the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) have historically attempted to seize power in Libya. In order to avoid triggering an explosion of radical Islamic elements taking over, it is of utmost importance that any intervention in Libya not be perceived as a U.S.-led operation.
Significantly, the revolts that have swept the Middle East in recent months have been organic. In Egypt, for example, every step of the revolts, from the protests to the ultimate overthrow of the government, was directed and carried out by Egyptians without U.S. involvement – a fact of great pride among the Egyptians. A minimalist stance on the part of the US ensures the prevention of anti-American sentiments arresting political change. Waiting to secure UN and Arab League approval distributes the responsibility globally, instead of allowing intervention to be branded as an American ploy.
With the U.S. hesitance to strike Libya in mind, no one could credibly argue that the U.S. forcibly intervened. Moreover, the ultimate involvement of the US sends a signal to the leaders of regimes in other Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Bahrain and Algeria, that the threat of international military intervention is real, and that they will be unable to use the argument of American imperialism to counter public opinion about foreign intervention.
Regardless of how Obama’s actions are interpreted, they have certainly brought about key tactical advantages. Instead of impulsively dragging the country into another war, he has led the international community to align its position on intervention in Libya by presenting an image of caution and restraint for many weeks. Previous administrations have treated the UN as a rubber stamp council in going to war, inviting it to vote on resolutions approving foreign intervention, but intervening regardless of the outcome. That approach deprives the U.S. of genuine cooperation with potential allies critical to the success of a mission. The new approach carved out by the Obama administration, however, has broken from that approach and made it clear that it will not launch any attack that is not approved by the UN. Although UN approval is not necessarily synonymous with prudent action, such an approach effectively shifts the burden of responsibility away from the US. By inviting genuine debate and input from Lebanon, France, Britain, and the Arab League, the U.S. has successfully garnered broad political and military support.
In short, Obama may be ushering in a new era of U.S. engagement in foreign military intervention, breaking from the unilateral paradigm of U.S.-initiated wars from the Bush period. By refusing to act until legal UN approval was obtained and allowing other nations to take responsibility in leading coalitions, Obama may be reshaping the rules for U.S. engagement abroad in a manner that will be beneficial to us in the future. The U.S. is adopting a pragmatic doctrine that will not only reduce economic and military expenses, but also garner international political consensus that will lessen anti-Americanism in the long-term.
