In a recent news story from Libya (by the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Or) one of the leaders of the rebel movement – Abdel Hakim al Hasidi – has stated that he fought against the US led Coalition in Iraq and that other extremists and terrorists (my words, not his) that fought against the Coalition in Iraq are now fighting with him (and presumably the US?) in Libya.
This interesting bit of news is further buttressed by a statement from Chad’s President - Idriss Deby Itno - that members of Al Qaeda broke into an armory in Chad and stole man-portable surface to air missiles and headed to Libya to fight against Colonel Qaddafi.
Welcome to war, where nothing turns out quite the way you planned – or hoped.
The President has said that we have established a ‘No Fly’ zone (which is over the entire northern half of the country – more than I thought would be done, but actually not much more difficult, given our capabilities, but it will be harder to justify for any extended period of time) and are attacking Libyan forces in order to help the Libyan civilians. Or something like that. I heard someone quote a decidedly Pentagonese phrase that the goal was to ‘set the conditions to be able to provide aid...’ (If that is the case, we already succeeded; in fact, we succeeded before we started. In short, if that is the stated objective, we can stop whenever we are tired and the story has been sapped for all possible positive spin, declare success, and leave.)
Meanwhile, we are now ‘in bed’ with the rebels who, it turns out, may not be exactly savory characters. They may in fact not wish us terribly well. But we are now officially on their side. When you start dropping bombs and launching missiles and firing cannons at someone’s enemy, you are as officially as it can get on that someone’s side. The President and his staff are all lawyers: aiding and abetting is one thing, but if you are pulling the trigger of the biggest weapon in the room, you aren’t an ‘accomplice,’ you are part of the gang.
Where does that leave us? Do we want Mr. Abdel Hakim to succeed? If he does, are we going to recognize his government? If his government then launches attacks on the west, are we going to attack him? That, by the way, is well beyond any ‘adventurism’ thought of by President Reagan or President Bush (41) or President Bush (43). That kind of activity would put the US into the role of playing the Mid-East as a board game, sort of like Johnson and Nixon tried in Vietnam: put in a leader, take him out when you don’t like him, continue…
It has been noted – repeatedly – that President Obama did not engage in any discussion with Congress before beginning these operations over Libya. Some have said his actions are in violation of the Constitution (they aren’t) or the War Powers Act (they aren’t – he has 90 days to act before Congress can enter the picture – assuming the War Powers Act is Constitutional). But the reason discussion with Congress would be of value – would have been of value – is that facts like this might have come to light.
If the US really saw a national interest in Libya that outweighed the possibility that the US would be setting the groundwork for a pro-Al Qaeda government to possibly come to power in an oil-exporting nation, then a discussion with Congress would ostensibly have highlighted that interest. That did not happen.
We now face the following possible results: The operation fails to dislodge Colonel Qaddafi – he emerges as having ‘beaten’ the US and the West - and he is stronger then ever, and the US reputation in the Mid-East is seriously weakened; the operation dislodges Colonel Qaddafi and the rebel movement, led by Abdel Hakim, takes power and we have an anti-west, radical, terror supporting government replaced by an anti-west, more radical, terror supporting, pro Al Qaeda government; the third option is that the operation serendipitously results in a stalemate, followed by both Colonel Qaddafi’s government collapsing as well as the rebel forces, and both are replaced by a popular, secular, pro-west government.
There is a fourth option, if the above doesn’t sound like a good ‘investment,’ and that is we go in, knock down Colonel Qaddafi’s regime, and set up a stable, secular, pro-West regime right now. That will involve real leadership, hard choices, and, oh yeah, putting 25-30,000 combat troops (4 - 5 BCTs or RCTs) plus support forces ashore to take care of Libya’s military, restore order and re-establish civil processes. As there hasn’t been massive damage to infrastructure yet, it should only take 2 - 3 years. If we’re lucky.
But, there is little likelihood that this path will be chosen – for good or ill. In short, long-term success is now in the realm of the third option above, which falls into the realm of hope.
Churchill noted that once a war started no matter how well planned you are to some extent along for the ride. As Churchill knew all too well, only by a great deal of action and ‘investment’ is it possible in any war to reach a result that looks even a little bit like what you wanted when you started.
Or we can hope.
And, as a brilliant, and grizzled, old Marine told me many years ago, ‘Hope is not a plan.’
No comments:
Post a Comment