Strategy for Libya: Obama Fears Setback on the Home Front

At first, he just wanted to bomb Libya for a short period of time. Then the Europeans were told to lead. But now, Obama seems to support a stronger involvement in Libya. The U.S. president is deploying combat drones against Gadhafi’s troops and sending money to the rebels — a dilemma in the coming U.S. election campaign.

Jay Carney, U.S. President Barack Obama’s press secretary, wants to look ahead, toward re-election. On board Air Force One, the president’s aircraft, Carney said that his boss was feeling good during the first election campaign appearances on the West Coast. He added that speaking directly with his supporters builds Obama up. “It gives him more energy.”* But the reporters diminished the joy of the happy message. They wanted to know how the president is getting his information about Libya now that U.S. involvement is growing again. Carney’s good mood vanished, ultimately because he now has to talk about murdered Americans. Only Wednesday, two U.S. war correspondents were killed in Misrata.

Even tougher questions could soon threaten Obama himself. Nevertheless, the U.S. seems to want to be more active in Libya again. The decision to use Predator combat drones against dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s ground troops and to send $25 million to the rebels for logistical support, holds great risks for the White House team. Obama could become more and more entangled in a conflict that he can score little or no points with at home. In the meantime, the majority of Americans are against the military operation; they are not sure about the aim of the mission.

There is also growing criticism that U.S. involvement could have unintentional consequences. Stephen Walt, a Harvard political science professor, wrote in his blog on the U.S. magazine Foreign Policy’s website that: “This situation is a textbook illustration of what one might call the Intervention Paradox.” Walt’s theory is that because the Western states did not see their vital interests as threatened, they only half-heartedly committed themselves — for example, with distanced airstrikes or drone attacks instead of with their own troops. This is dragging out the operation and will ultimately do more harm than good to the people in Libya.

Up to Five Drones Will Allegedly Be Used

After the decision to use drones, Robert Gates, U.S. secretary of defense, highlighted that Obama is still explicitly ruling out the use of ground troops. But airstrikes are already too much for many Americans; they want a swift end to the mission. Nevertheless, Obama had originally assured his citizens that it would just be a short involvement. The president is confronted with a dilemma because of this promise, as Secretary Gates unintentionally made clear. In answer to the journalist’s question of how long the operation would last, Gates answered with: “Nobody knows the answer to that question.”

On the one hand, military strategists think that drones could be more dangerous to Gadhafi’s troops than fighter jets. This is especially true in densely populated areas, where the death of innocent citizens is to be avoided. James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed that they can fly lower and get better visibility of targets. That is helpful because Gadhafi’s fighters have begun “to take position.”* According to media reports, up to five drones have allegedly come into operation.

The U.S. Wants No Future with Gadhafi

On the other hand, Gadhafi is still in power. At the same time, it is increasingly clear that the Libyan rebels are uncoordinated and poorly equipped. The drone attacks might not be enough to drive out Gadhafi. It also does not help that influential Senator John McCain called the rebels heroes during his visit to the rebel city of Benghazi on Friday.

On the one hand, Obama has never officially announced that Gadhafi’s removal is the goal of the offensive. After all, this mission is also not planned in the U.N. Security Council mandate. On the other hand, the U.S. is constantly emphasizing that there can be no future with Gadhafi. If he stays in power, Obama’s argument that at least a bloodbath in Libya was prevented would suddenly seem empty. Particularly since the question of how long the no-fly zone should actually be maintained is being asked.

Obama’s concept of “new multilateralism” — meaning that the U.S. had to intervene, but not necessarily lead — could also suffer. Obama argued that: “American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions for others to step up as well.”

The Morale in the Country Is Poor

The idea behind this is that in a multi-polar world, the French or the British, for example, can also take command in Libya if America does not want to get caught up in a third conflict in the Muslim world. Now, America seems to have to take the lead again. It is confirmation for all Obama skeptics who think little of the new multilateralism — particularly, the European allies. McCain’s visit on Friday is to be understood as pointing in this direction. Particularly since he left no doubt that he wants a stronger role for the U.S. in the conflict — and in doing so has put Obama under pressure in the election campaign that is gradually starting.

Actually, the president now intends to focus on his message of creating new jobs or reducing the huge U.S. budget deficit because morale in the country is poor. According to a new poll, the American people’s pessimism about their economic situation is no longer as large as when Obama assumed office at the beginning of 2009. As well as having to get peace in Libya, it would prevent the president from carrying out his most important task — to inspire as many Americans as possible again.

*This quote, although accurately translated, could not be verified.