Attention: Leader Wanted for Odyssey

OK, perhaps a shove had to be given to Gadhafi; perhaps there were no alternatives to a military operation. But in this “Odyssey Dawn” could you at least tell us who is in command? “Coalition of the willing” is a good definition, almost as good as the name of the military mission. But even though things have already begun, it is now time to clarify who is responsible from this point forward. Upon first glance, the coalition seems to be a high-tech Brancaleone army.*

Hearing the many things being said these days, it is disheartening to discover that there is truly no unified military command. The French have their own, the British come and go directly from Scottish bases. The other day in Washington, Vice Admiral William Gortney said that the Pentagon is the leading edge, the leading guide of the “multi-phase operation” (?). For days it has been announced that Capodichino was about to become the “brain button” (!) of the mission. To avoid hitting the same target twice and collisions in the crowded Libyan airspace, there will be coordination. But will it be enough to get to the end of the odyssey?

Above all, can you win without political leadership? Assuming that what is sold — “the defense of the civilian population” — is not the only goal of the conflict, Gadhafi’s fall will take time. There are two ways to achieve it: the very unlikely intervention of ground troops of the willing after bombing from the air, or the military strengthening of the rebels in Benghazi. But time needs consensus — the consensus of strong political motivation, the motivation of a leader.

NATO could be a military and political synthesis of what is needed. Nevertheless, Nicolas Sarkozy does not want it because he would lose the primacy he has gained. Not even Turkey wants it because its growth is dependent upon the Arab world, which does not like this kind of military intervention. And, above all, the Americans do not like it — both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stated that within a few days the U.S. will “step back.” So NATO therefore seems excluded. Also excluded is the European Union which, in addition to the absence of a collective will, does not have the facilities to support a conflict — it lacks a common foreign and defense policy.

On the political front the dominant feature of “Odyssey Dawn” seems to be the election factor. It is so for Sarkozy, who believes that launching the first military mission will ensure him of the approval that he no longer has. It is so for Angela Merkel who, on the contrary, thinks that it will be more useful not to take part. It is also the case for Amr Moussa — rather than secretary-general of the Arab League, Moussa is now the leading candidate for president of Egypt. His hesitation between participating and abstaining depends on this: The Arab in him would like to get rid of Gadhafi, but the Egyptian in him states that his electorate, now free to express its will, does not like seeing foreigners in the Middle East.

There remains, therefore, the U.S. For better, as with the first Gulf War of 1990, and for worse, as with the second one of 2003, only the Americans are able to put together and lead coalitions. The world is changing, but the U.S. is still the only global superpower — it is the only one for whom national interest is what happens thousands of miles from its shores. For other emerging powers, national interests stops at their borders, possibly at neighboring countries and in the region around them.

On the other hand, Barack Obama is already campaigning — presidential elections are far away, but today no one knows how long “Odyssey Dawn” will last. Maybe it is just a flawed syllogism, but if voting is the highest point of democracy, it will be curious if autocrat Moammar Gadhafi survives because of democracy.

*Editor’s Note: Brancaleone is used in Italian to describe a disorganized and improvised army.