The War in Libya and America’s Smart Power

On the morning of April 4, Obama formally declared his intentions to seek re-election. On the very same day, America decided to stop sending military planes to participate in the airstrike against Libya and, after handing command over to NATO, the U.S. “got out.” By the looks of things, Obama does not want to enter into yet another war while he is campaigning for the 2012 presidency. This can be seen as another display of his “smart power” strategy.

Obama is America’s first African-American President, is the first president to receive a Nobel Peace Prize while in office and has promised many times to not engage in war with Muslims. While the domestic economic situation has turned around, Obama is unwilling to enter into another war with Islam while the Iraq and Afghanistan wars remain unfinished — not to mention that there are disagreeing opinions within the cabinet, and there is much opposition in the strategic community. However, the former have France and the United Kingdom leading the charge, while the latter have “human rights over sovereignty” moral inhibition. As “the world’s leader of freedom” America cannot fall behind; they can only use “smart power.” First, they play the “non-leadership” role as they participate in the attack. In reality, the United States in this Libyan War is still a “major” leader. Obama knows that this will incur criticisms from many domestic heavyweights, after considering both sides. Obama finally gave a speech at the National Defense University, ten days after joining the war, giving excuses like “this was U.N. mandated, the League of Arab States consented, the United States would take a supporting role, this is a multilateral act and the United States will not deploy ground troops.” He listed justifications for the necessity, validity and legitimacy of this military action to lessen the domestic criticisms, international pressures and to reflect at a critical moment, America’s special component. He intends to highlight the difference between this and the strong sense of the unilateral nature of the Bush Doctrine. Another implication is that, by taking a “supporting role” in Libya, the U.S. is using this as an experiment for a “new form of intervention.” Using “smart power” is the original core meaning of the “Obama Doctrine.”

However, the actual reason Obama decided to join was the change in situation in Western Asia and North Africa. The “Middle East wave” that started with Tunisia and Egypt and slowly spread, lifting the spirits of the United States and other Western countries, meant that the strategic impulse to democratize the “big Middle East” was once again ignited. No one thought that the “revolution wave” would come to a screeching halt in Libya; one can see that the crumbling Gadhafi government will just not fall. This causes the West to watch the rebels be backed into a corner. If no strong action is taken to take Gadhafi down, not only will this thoroughly discredit the United States and Europe, but it will also stop the “democratic domino” in the Middle East. This is not compliant with America’s interests.

However, Obama understands America’s plight. It is different from Bush Jr. attacking Iraq; there are difficult problems in the United States today. Domestically, there is a financial turnaround and the task of economic recovery. In international affairs, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq is unsuccessful and then there is the unfinished situation in Afghanistan. Not to mention climate change, governing the entire world and dealing with global problems that need America to “take the lead.” More importantly is that the thoughts of the American people are stable, and they no longer wish to play the “political game,” which uses military tactics to change regimes.

The situation in Libya and even the changing situation in Western Asia and North Africa compared with America trying to “reviving their powerful position” strategy — Obama is well aware which of these is more important. America is strategically focused on either continuing eastward or returning; Obama needs to be discerning. And more urgently, he will have to fight to be reelected, or else he will end up with the dismal legacy of “cleaning up the Bush mess.” This does not go along with Obama’s ambitions to change history.

From having American troops play a supporting role in a war to pulling out at a crucial time, this time America’s military actions in Libya were not normal, and this is an improvement. One could say that America unwillingly accepts this situation. Obama has abandoned the lone cowboy style and instead is now using “smart power” as the situation dictates.