U.S. Foreign Policy Hamstrung in Libya

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 2, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                             

                Lumbering U.S. foreign policy led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finds itself weighed down by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When former President George W. Bush decided to detour into Iraq March 20, 2003, he opened up a can of worms, so costly and labor-intensive he undermined the more pressing mission in Afghanistan.  Bush had nearly unanimous support Oct. 7, 2001 for Operation Enduring Freedom in the wake of Sept. 11, a focused mission to topple the Taliban and hunt down Osama bin Laden.  While he succeeded in ending Taliban rule, he bogged the Pentagon down in an endless guerrilla war, diverting attention and resources to Iraq.  Bogged down in both countries, the Pentagon is spread to thin to intervene in Libya or any other emerging hot spot, especially Iran and North Korea.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed caution about Libya.

            Dispatching two amphibious U.S. warships to the Mediterranean with 400 marines, Gates spoke only of non-combat contingency plans.  “And we also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East,” referring to Pentagon-fatigue in Iraq and Afghanistan.  “So I think we’re sensitive about all of these things, but we will provide the president with a full range of options,” steering away from any direct U.S. military intervention in Libya.  Watching the loosely organized Libyan opposition massacred on the streets of Tripoli doesn’t look good for the U.S. military.  Gates pointed out that the U.N. Security Council resolution passed last week provided no provision for the U.S. military.   White House officials have voiced loudly their support of Libyan rebels and opposition to the Kadafi regime yet can do little to bring about regime change.

            Clinton talked of imposing a “no-fly zone” to prevent Kadafi from bombing opposition leaders but knows it’s virtually impossible without a Security Council authorization.  Freezing Kadafi’s U.S. assets, restricting air travel and other financial sanctions won’t stop the brutal crackdown currently underway.  Like the Ayatollah’s crackdown in Iran, the U.S. has its hands tied by two costly wars.  “The United States continues to look at every single lever it can use against the Kadafi regime,” said Clinton, forgetting, during a different time when the U.S. military had less burdens, the late President Ronald Reagan bombed Kadafi April 15, 1986 without U.N. approval.  Reagan responded with his policy of “swift and effective retribution” against terrorists after Kadafi suicide-bombed a Berlin nightclub April 5, 1986, targeting U.S. civilians and service men and women.

            Sending machine-gun armed youths into Libyan streets to defend his regime, Kadafi loyalists mowed down rock-and-stick carrying protesters.  Clinton expressed concerns about the U.S. walking softly in Libya because of anti-American sentiment, assuring protests look indigenous, not U.S.-sponsored.  While it all sounds good, the reality is U.S. assets are spread too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, preventing the U.S. from intervening more decisively.  Complicating the Libyan picture is the lack of any real organized opposition to Kadafi.  While youth-in-revolt count for something, deriving inspiration from neighboring Tunisia and Egypt, Kadafi is a different kind of tyrant, far more brutal and ruthless, attesting to his 42-year-reign.  Unlike Egypt, where the Pentagon helped train the Egyptian military, the U.S. has no contacts or support inside the Libyan military.

            Looking at the big picture, the U.S. has no real strategic interest in Libya, other than helping pro-Democracy movements around the globe.  When Mubarak went down in Egypt, the White House faced withering criticism from the right for failing to support a staunch ally.  More information about Mubarak’s egregious piracy over his 30-year reign made it difficult for the White House to oppose regime change.  Unlike Mubarak, Kadafi was no ally, proving a stubborn thorn in the U.S. side for much of his 42-years.  While reluctant to intervene in Libya, Gates expressed optimism about pro-reform movements across North Africa and the Middle East.  “It basically gives the lie to al-Qaeda’s claim that the only way to get rid of authoritarian governments is through extreme violence . . .” said Gates, seeing Tunisia, Egypt and other authoritarian regimes moving away from Islamic extremism   

            Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. can only watch the civilian massacre along with the feckless U.N. and other Western powers.  Without a forceful U.S. response to the Dec. 21, 1988 Libyan bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Kadafi has no reason to believe any civilized regime will confront his brutal crackdown.  “It’s an extraordinarily complex operation to set up,” said Adm. Mike Mullet, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responding to questions about setting up a no-fly-zone.  More than ever, the Obama administration must resolve commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, consolidate and streamline military operations and pick the right battles  to intervene around the globe.  If the U.S. can topple the Taliban, they can do more to stop the bloodshed in Libya and deal with the criminal pirate gangs now plaguing global shipping in Somalia.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.