War in Libya: What Are the Allies Doing?

The Americans don’t want to lead. The French do. But the reality is different.

Libyan state television showed the golden fist, a symbol of Gadhafi’s palace in Tripoli, crushing an American fighter jet. The dictator’s threatening voice-over promised “a long, drawn-out war with no limits,” against the Western “crusader aggression.” He added that the entire Libyan population was armed and their victory was inevitable. Gadhafi stressed that the Libyan people were unafraid and would not retreat from the battlefield because they were defending their land and their values. He then predicted the governments in Paris, London and Washington would be defeated as were Hitler and Mussolini.

What’s the situation in Libya after the first attacks?

Already during the opening hours of the allied air attacks, the regime had assembled its faithful supporters — as a human shield for Gadhafi’s Bab al-Azizia military base and the civilian airport at Tripoli.

From an SUV, Gadhafi’s daughter, Ayesha, called out praises for her father to the crowd. “God, Libya, Gadhafi — that’s everything,” she cried, adding that the people wanted Gadhafi to be their leader. On television, Gadhafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, called the rebels gangsters and terrorists. State-controlled media later announced that over a million Libyans would be given firearms. In the harbor, armed men took the crew of an Italian ship hostage. Meanwhile, Gadhafi’s tanks launched an attack on the city of Misrata some 125 miles from Tripoli where residents told Al-Jazeera correspondents that the city was being shelled into the ground. Water and electricity in the city were turned off days ago, and government sharpshooters have been posted on rooftops to shoot at anything that moves.

Gadhafi’s troops still had not succeeded in gaining control over the city of Benghazi at the time the military intervention had begun. Bombs, artillery salvos and exchanges of gunfire shook western areas of the city for hours. Many eyewitness accounts report that tanks had been advancing into many residential areas but had been driven back to the city outskirts following numerous bitter firefights. After the no-fly operation went into effect, the rebels got their first period of relative calm in days as they prepared to try retaking the city of Ajdabiya that they had lost the previous week. Television reports showed numerous burned-out military vehicles belonging to elite forces loyal to Gadhafi that had been destroyed by French fighter jets. Eyewitnesses counted 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two rocket-launching trucks and numerous trucks still ablaze hours after they had been attacked. The battle killed at least 14 government troops, including African mercenary troops. At another location, the attacks had apparently taken the troops by surprise. The roadside was littered with bedding, clothing and the personal effects of hundreds of men, including boots, flak jackets, cigarettes and cassette players.

The Americans are reporting early successes but originally didn’t want a no-fly zone. Then they did. What happened?

Obama gave his forces the command to engage in Libya while he was in Brasilia meeting with Brazil’s new president, Dilma Rousseff. When he gave the “go” for the Libyan operation, he constantly emphasized that the United States would not be playing the leading role but rather would be supporting its Arab and European allies. This concept was very unusual to an American public that is accustomed to thinking in terms of U.S. leadership. First impressions of the military engagement, however, tell a different story: The majority of cruise missiles launched against Libya came from American ships. The command headquarters of the campaign is aboard the USS Mount Whitney in the Mediterranean. Another indication came from Vice Adm. Bill Gortney at the Pentagon, who said in a news conference, “As you know, we’re on the leading edge of a [sic] coalition military operations designed to enforce United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 in Libya.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed almost simultaneously, “We did not lead this.”

What does that tell us? Did Obama lead the United States into war without wanting to admit it, or was he forced into it? Does it reveal why so many Americans seem to feel he is foreign and even un-American?

Once again, Obama is making no attempt to disambiguate his foreign policy. The arguments for intervention are just as valid and convincing as those against it. They share many of the same concerns expressed by Chancellor Angela Merkel that favor avoiding engagement in Libya. That’s why he hesitated for two weeks. And it’s also why it came as a surprise on Wednesday when the United States threw its entire weight behind passage of a U.N. resolution permitting military action in Libya.

It was neither military nor conservative hawks who persuaded Obama. It was three liberal, pro-intervention women: Samantha Power, former Harvard professor and now Director of Multilateral Affairs on the staff of the National Security Council; U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice; and Gayle Smith, an important voice at the Center for American Progress. For all three, watching the genocide in Rwanda as the United States stood by without intervening was a key experience. Former President Bill Clinton says in retrospect that that episode was one of his worst mistakes. And Hillary Clinton also appeared to apply those lessons to the current Libyan situation when she joined the interventionist side last week. But she waited to do so until she had personally met with representatives of the Libyan opposition in Paris.

Between March 9 and March 16, the daily crisis briefings at the White House were uncharacteristically contentious and impassioned. Obama doesn’t particularly care for his advisors giving vent to their emotions. Despite his sympathy for the rebel cause, he wants to avoid risk. And he has a powerful skeptical ally in Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He warns that it’s far too risky when the perception in the Arab world is that the United States is trying to force a particular political outcome on them. The military can ill afford fighting a third war and can even less afford committing ground troops for nation-building purposes into the vacuum that would follow Gadhafi’s fall; Libya would require the presence of foreign troops to ensure security and free elections at some point in the future. One need only mention Jimmy Carter’s name to imagine the risk Obama would be taking. In 1980, Carter was on his way to a second term in office when a similar military misadventure, the attempt to free the hostages in Iran, tripped him up.

For Obama, two factors were finally decisive: first, the dynamics on the ground. Gadhafi’s mercenaries retaliated against the rebels with frightening speed. Second, Obama got what he already considered essential — namely, a leading role being played by the Arab nations in opposing Gadhafi: The Arab League approved the no-fly zone. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia further promised to supply aircraft for the undertaking. According to the U.S. media, Egypt had already been supplying the Libyan rebels with arms for some time.

Is a land war possible?

While the U.N. mandate doesn’t foresee such an operation, the two leading European participants appear to be of two minds on the subject. France’s Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said on Saturday that a French troop landing on the Libyan coast wasn’t being planned and added that there would be no ground troops committed in Libya. In Great Britain, meanwhile, the situation appears to be different. Military planners there see no quick resolution in Libya and speak of airstrikes within weeks, while government officials refuse to rule out the use of ground forces. Foreign Secretary William Hague pointed out that the U.N. resolution only prohibits the use of “occupational” forces, not ground forces in general.

How do the French and British positions affect the intervention?

The French are involved in “Mission Odyssey Dawn,” in which their nation plays a non-triumphal but decisive role. They support President Nicolas Sarkozy, the creator of “Odyssey Dawn.” The typical reaction to this was expressed Sunday by Socialist opposition leader Benoît Hamon, who said that somehow France found itself at war, and that was no cause for celebration. But the Socialists nonetheless also support the use of French aircraft over Libya to stop Gadhafi’s troops from advancing further. Hamon added that he hoped the Libyan rebels would eventually succeed in deposing Gadhafi.

In Great Britain, the military intervention is considered a huge success for Prime Minister David Cameron, who not only has the full support of the coalition-partner Liberal Democrats but even that of the opposition. Labor chief Ed Miliband said involvement was all about supporting the values of the international community. The British parliament is expected to overwhelmingly approve the military action on Monday.