Obama's Libya Fiasco

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 19, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

         Since President Barack Obama ordered over $500 million worth of Cruise missiles to rain down on Tripoli March 19, the NATO mission has hit a brick wall trying to dislodge 68-year-old Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Kadafi.  Barack’s golden opportunity to show his skill as commander-in-chief has all but vanished, after ordering the Pentagon to take a backseat to NATO.  While there was some early progress slowing Kadafi’s assault on the rebel-held Mediterranean port city of Benghazi, Khadifi’s youngest son Khamis continues his relentless rocket and mortar assault on Misrata, Libyan’s third largest city.   Exactly one month into the conflict, neither side makes  much progress, with Kadafi’s forces afflicting the greater damage.  Misrata’s meager hospitals overflow with casualties, leaving a growing bloodshed from the government’s indiscriminate attacks.   

            Committing U.S. forces was a big decision for an administration racked by political dissent and a sluggish economy.  Obama’s reluctant approach from day-one in Libya hasn’t accomplished the March 17 U.N. resolution, authorizing any and all means to protect the Libyan civilians.  Obama’s March 25 televised speech on the Libya offered no coherent national security rationale, causing his approval ratings slide. Since then, Barack has continued to defer the mission to NATO, prompting much criticism from Libyan rebels, unable to stop Kadafi’s forces from shelling key rebel strongholds.  Unable to help rebels make progress, British Foreign Secretary William Hague dispatched a 20-member team of military advisers to the rebel compound of Benghazi, hoping to give the necessary military strategy and logistics to help pro-reform rebels advance to Tripoli.

            NATO admitted that its air campaign can’t disrupt Kadafi’s Khamis Brigade from attacking rebel targets.  Refusing to commit ground troops has handicapped the NATO effort to find a way to break the logjam.  So far, Kadafi has come out the big winner, proving he could take the West’s best shot and remain on his feet.   “There is a limit to what can be achieved by airpower to stop fighting in a city,” said NATO Brig. Gen Mark Van Uhm, admitting little success in destroying Kadafi’s mortars and mobile rocket launchers.  While allied forces have destroyed over 40 Libyan tanks through relentless air-attacks, they can’t neutralize Kadafi’s ground forces, now fighting a guerrilla war against the U.N. and U.S.-backed rebels.  “It’s very difficult to stop the regime’s firepower on Misrata,” said Adm. Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of NATO’s military committee.      

            Obama faces a real dilemma allowing NATO to continue the current air war, without real progress protecting Libyan civilians and the not-so-hidden agenda of getting rid of Kadafi.  French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron have made it clear they want Kadafi out.  While Obama has said the same off the record, his March 25 speech echoed the U.N. mandate of only protecting Libyan rebels.  European Union officials signaled that they’re ready to provide ground forces to carry out the humanitarian mission.  “Should we feel military assets be necessary to get aid in, we will revisit the matter at the time,” said Stephanie Bunker, spokeswoman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs at the New York U.N. headquarters.  Unlike the EU, the U.N. still hasn’t concluded that regime change is the only way forward.

            With NATO orchestrating the mission at Obama’s insistence, the U.S. is rapidly running out of options to finish the job.  Kadafi remains in power, in part, because the original U.N. mandate did not include regime change.  Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaaled Kaim warned the U.N. and NATO about putting boots on the ground, insisting any ground troops would be viewed as a hostile military action.  Barack needs to coordinate with Sarkozy and Cameron and come up with a joint plan to finally get rid of Kadafi.  Letting him stay in power would be a big blow to U.S., NATO and EU credibility.  Kadafi’s history of terrorist acts, including the Dec. 21, 1988 remote-controlled bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, make him a dangerous menace that must be removed from power.  No Western power can rest comfortably if Kadafi is left to stay in  power.

            Obama’s reluctance to act decisively in Libya, to do what’s necessary to get rid of Kadafi, including deploying ground troops, has hurt his credibility.  Most folks are wondering why get involved at all, if you’re not prepared to finish the job.  Whether or not France or the U.K. agrees to put ground troops into Libya can’t deter the U.S. from doing what it takes.  Putting the CIA or U.S. Special Forces on the ground isn’t enough to move situation toward a satisfactory resolution.  No progress can be made in Libya until Kadafi accepts an exile deal and gets out.  Without a credible ground invasion, Kadafi will continue to hole up in his bunker, letting NATO’s air campaign bomb Tripoli into the Stone Age.  Putting boots on the ground would send Kadafi the loudest possible signal to get out.  Only by deploying ground troops will Kadafi get the message that it’s time to relocate.

 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.