Muted Victory
After defeats that were sold as victories come victories that are silent. NATO’s actions in Libya validates a new type of war, or military intervention, adopted by the U.S. under President Barack Obama; a contest in which the protagonist, the largest military superpower, stays discretely in the background, paying more attention to getting results through political coordination than to proclaiming victories.
This is what happened with the war of the drones, those unmanned airplanes which are more and more indispensable for espionage, bombardment and precision strikes, and which are decimating al-Qaida faster than the terrorist organization can grow back. It is also the type of intervention planned for Iraq and Afghanistan after the withdrawal of direct combat troops, and utilized in Yemen, in a supporting role, along with the training of national troops in their fight against the al-Qaida insurgency.
The results of these muted interventions are there to be seen in two initial victories in Libya: first, with the imposition of a no-fly zone that prevented the slaughter Gadhafi was planning in Benghazi; second, with the fall of the tyrant without a single boot on the ground. We are still waiting for the third victory, which is perhaps the most difficult, and whose leading role must be played by the Libyans themselves, which consists in organizing the country and restoring liberty after liberation.
The Libyan victory sends an unmistakable message to the rest of the Arab countries. For Tunisia and Egypt, which are undergoing a difficult transition, it is a relief to at last have a neighbor that is at peace, and which is setting out on a parallel road after ridding itself of its own tyrant. For Syria, it means becoming the center of attention — it is next on the list. For the rest, the safety of the revolutionary impulse, duly accompanied by international support, remains lively and intense; those who doubt the need for preemptive reform and change should take note.
Obama’s strategy in Libya was the exact opposite of Bush’s in Iraq. The airstrikes took place at the direct request of the Libyans, which was not the case in Iraq. The bombings and attacks, with very few exceptions, were carried out without civilian casualties. The toppling of the dictator was done by the Libyans themselves. No one will tell them how they should govern themselves and construct their future.
This is why there has been no shortage of criticism from those seeking an after-the-fact justification of that illegal, unilateral and unjust war in Iraq, which divided Europe and the rest of the international community, through the failure of this legal, multilateral and just war, which was executed according to international law, under the guise of the United Nations. Now that Gadhafi is toppled, these critics see bad omens and predict that Libya will be cursed with chaos and civil war.
There are many reasons to overturn that ill-fated strategy of declaring the war as “Mission Accomplished,” as Bush imprudently did on an aircraft carrier two months after the Iraq invasion, a declaration of victory that the facts would cruelly refute up to the last day of his presidency. Military victories, real or imagined, almost never win elections, although if executed foolishly may lose them. The next election will be played on the field of the economy and unemployment. It would not be appropriate to seek electoral gain from complex strategic issues such as the changes that are occurring in the Arab world.
Without the U.S. and its overwhelming though silent participation, NATO would not be able to claim this victory. The Atlantic allies do not possess the capability, nor the weaponry, to carry out a campaign like the one in Libya. This war, a success for the interventionists, shows the weakness of Europe — specifically, a divided NATO and a non-existent EU — which lacks the political will, civic consciousness and, above all, the defense budget to act in a crisis like Libya’s in any other role than its proper one of regional power.
Obama has lent the wings from this victory to Sarkozy and Cameron, who have taken up the helm and will use it for political advantage; especially the Frenchman, who is up for re-election in 2012 and will be able to appear as the victor in Libya, after being the loser in Ben Ali’s Tunisia. On the side of liabilities in this war is Germany, a country that is out of harmony with Europe in all aspects: the euro, Libya, and soon, the recognition of Palestine in the United Nations.
Obama leads from behind, but Merkel brakes from up front. The former has no doctrine, but is constructing a new one. The latter wants nothing to do with the rest of the world unless it directly affects the ballot box or the cash register.
This is what happened with the war of the drones, those unmanned airplanes which are more and more indispensable for espionage, bombardment and precision strikes, and which are decimating al-Qaida faster than the terrorist organization can grow back. It is also the type of intervention planned for Iraq and Afghanistan after the withdrawal of direct combat troops, and utilized in Yemen, in a supporting role, along with the training of national troops in their fight against the al-Qaida insurgency.
The results of these muted interventions are there to be seen in two initial victories in Libya: first, with the imposition of a no-fly zone that prevented the slaughter Gadhafi was planning in Benghazi; second, with the fall of the tyrant without a single boot on the ground. We are still waiting for the third victory, which is perhaps the most difficult, and whose leading role must be played by the Libyans themselves, which consists in organizing the country and restoring liberty after liberation.
The Libyan victory sends an unmistakable message to the rest of the Arab countries. For Tunisia and Egypt, which are undergoing a difficult transition, it is a relief to at last have a neighbor that is at peace, and which is setting out on a parallel road after ridding itself of its own tyrant. For Syria, it means becoming the center of attention — it is next on the list. For the rest, the safety of the revolutionary impulse, duly accompanied by international support, remains lively and intense; those who doubt the need for preemptive reform and change should take note.
Obama’s strategy in Libya was the exact opposite of Bush’s in Iraq. The airstrikes took place at the direct request of the Libyans, which was not the case in Iraq. The bombings and attacks, with very few exceptions, were carried out without civilian casualties. The toppling of the dictator was done by the Libyans themselves. No one will tell them how they should govern themselves and construct their future.
This is why there has been no shortage of criticism from those seeking an after-the-fact justification of that illegal, unilateral and unjust war in Iraq, which divided Europe and the rest of the international community, through the failure of this legal, multilateral and just war, which was executed according to international law, under the guise of the United Nations. Now that Gadhafi is toppled, these critics see bad omens and predict that Libya will be cursed with chaos and civil war.
There are many reasons to overturn that ill-fated strategy of declaring the war as “Mission Accomplished,” as Bush imprudently did on an aircraft carrier two months after the Iraq invasion, a declaration of victory that the facts would cruelly refute up to the last day of his presidency. Military victories, real or imagined, almost never win elections, although if executed foolishly may lose them. The next election will be played on the field of the economy and unemployment. It would not be appropriate to seek electoral gain from complex strategic issues such as the changes that are occurring in the Arab world.
Without the U.S. and its overwhelming though silent participation, NATO would not be able to claim this victory. The Atlantic allies do not possess the capability, nor the weaponry, to carry out a campaign like the one in Libya. This war, a success for the interventionists, shows the weakness of Europe — specifically, a divided NATO and a non-existent EU — which lacks the political will, civic consciousness and, above all, the defense budget to act in a crisis like Libya’s in any other role than its proper one of regional power.
Obama has lent the wings from this victory to Sarkozy and Cameron, who have taken up the helm and will use it for political advantage; especially the Frenchman, who is up for re-election in 2012 and will be able to appear as the victor in Libya, after being the loser in Ben Ali’s Tunisia. On the side of liabilities in this war is Germany, a country that is out of harmony with Europe in all aspects: the euro, Libya, and soon, the recognition of Palestine in the United Nations.
Obama leads from behind, but Merkel brakes from up front. The former has no doctrine, but is constructing a new one. The latter wants nothing to do with the rest of the world unless it directly affects the ballot box or the cash register.