And Now Libya?

What to do about Libya…

There is an old vaudeville line to the effect that if you don’t know where you’re going, any road is ok. Strategy is like that. If you do not have a clear and specific goal, any plan is fine. And while the US military is superb at developing operational level plans and tactical level plans, we have not been very successful at strategic level plans. And there is a reason for that: strategic level plans require strategic level goals: clear, specific, national level goals, which are by their very nature long-term goals, and that means clarity of thought and a finality of decision.

Clarity is needed because strategic goals must be simply stated so that everyone involved knows what the important one, two or three points are, and in what order, so they know, when choices need to be made – and they will need to be made – what to do and what not to do.

And a finality of decision is required, a definitive statement from the top that the debate is over, we have chosen the end-state and we are now all working in that direction. In fact, one might argue that the single most important element of any strategy is to finally and definitively state ‘Our goal is X.’ Successful strategies throughout history – political, military, commercial - depend much more than anything else on working to a specific goal’ the plan may change, mid-points may change, and you still be successful. But certain doom rests in vague and constantly changing goals.

And so there are those who want us to do something about Libya. Certainly we all want Colonel Qaddafi to go away. Certainly, the US could establish a ‘No Fly’ zone over the eastern half of Libya (to be fair, it would not be over the entire eastern half of the nation, as the vast bulk of Libya is empty desert; rather, it would be over the a strip of land and coastal areas perhaps 300 x 300 miles in size.) But then what? What is the real goal? If the goal is to simply eliminate the Colonel and his regime, are we justified in launching 50 or 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles, seeing if they were successful, and if they were, simply walking away, and letting whatever happens next, well, happen?

Ignoring for a second the tenets of international law, and classic morals, both of which adhere to the principle ‘if you break it, you own it,’ is it a good idea for the US storm a nation in the Mid-East, smash the government, and then wash our hands and say ‘We are out of here?’ There may be a good deal of short-term visceral satisfaction to such a plan, but, as with most such plans, they look good in movies, but in real-life they will land you in trouble.

Of greatest concern is that any action to remove a head of state, anywhere, needs to consider what happens next. If we do not intend to take part in the formation of the next government, then we are de facto accepting whatever government comes to power. Do the rebels in eastern Libya constitute a viable regime? Do they believe in any of the tenets of democracy that we hold or are the real leaders of the movement members of some sort of extreme movement – political, religious, or social? While it is difficult to imagine at this point, what if the regime that replaced the Colonel rapidly evolves into an Arabic version of the Terror that gripped Paris after the revolution in 1789? Are we prepared to go back into Libya next year to put down a hyper-violent oligarchy?

As with most strategic planning, the questions quickly become unpleasant and force you to make hard decisions. The best place to start is with this simple question: what are my long-term interests? It would seem to me that before we decide what we ‘should’ do in Libya, the US needs to have a serious debate as to what are its long-term interests and long-term goals.

Unfortunately, there is insufficient time to do so. If we are to act vis-à-vis Libya, and not simply stand on the sidelines and watch, we needed to have this discussion last year. We are left with this option: the President must lead. He can begin this discussion by stating what he believes are the nation’s long-term interests and goals; as a general rule, we elect Presidents to do just that, to give voice to our goals. Then, he can identify clear goals relative to Libya and give to the Department of Defense and the State Department the task of developing a plan to achieve those goals. It is almost a certainty that we have the wherewithal to develop and execute a plan to achieve any goal assigned, assuming adequate assets are available. But, here is the final issue:

If the President chooses to defend the rebels, he has chosen sides. Once he has done that he is – in fact – stating that he, and the US, support the overthrow of the current government of Libya. This is what is known in strategic planning as ‘unlimited war goals.’ At that point the US is ‘all in’ and needs to act accordingly. Furthermore, at that point the US is to some degree both morally and legally culpable for any acts of violence perpetrated by our new allies, and the US is equally responsible for helping recover the country once the Colonel’s government is gone. We would be in a position analogous to where we were in Iraq in 2003, with just as many unknown problems facing us. (For comparison, Libya has a population of roughly 6.5 million and produces 1.8 million barrels of oil per day; Iraq has a population of 31 million and currently produces about 2.1 million barrel of oil per day.)

The situation in Libya is terrible. But let’s make sure we have our eyes open before we make any decisions.