Obama Does Not Want to Lead the War in Libya

The U.S. president has declined a leading role for the U.S. — it is the Europeans’ turn. He wants to avoid another unpredictable operation abroad.

Barack Obama was 6,700 km away from his citizens, in Brasilia, Brazil, when he gave the U.S. armed forces the order to go into action in Libya. He announced it during his conference with Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s new president, with a serious look in his eyes and a deep voice. But this is just one of several memorable events. Another one is the president not tiring of emphasizing that the U.S. does not have “the leading role” in this operation, but rather just a support role for the Arabic and European allies. These are unusual words for an American to pronounce. “American leadership” is usually part of the basic foundations of every comment about foreign policy.

Does it even match the news from Libya? The U.S. Sunday newspapers announced that the Coalition of the Willing has shot more than 100 rockets at Gadhafi’s air defenses, the majority of which were fired by U.S. ships. The wording that Obama wishes to be used is so unusual that his general staff find it hard to pronounce. At the Pentagon, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney said, “We are taking the reins.”* Almost simultaneously, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Paris emphasized that: “We did not lead this.”

How should the Americans understand their president? Does he understand the situation in North Africa better because his father is Kenyan? Or is he once again showing why so many citizens consider him to be foreign and un-American? The reporters hassled Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary, on Thursday at the White House, saying that if Obama was honestly thinking about waging a third war, alongside Iraq and Afghanistan, then wouldn’t he have had to stay at home and cancel his week-long trip to South America? Ultimately, this is Obama’s first war that he has chosen to fight; he inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from George W. Bush.

Though Obama is not aiming to portray his foreign policy as unambiguous, he expects his citizens to understand that the challenges lie in a gray area, where nothing is black or white. Very often, the arguments for intervention are equally as good and convincing as the reasons against it. He shares many concerns with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that keep her from participating. He hesitated for two weeks because of this. Therefore, it seemed like an unexpected U-turn when the U.S. exerted its full influence on Wednesday in the United Nations to approve a resolution allowing military action against Libya.

It was not the armed forces nor conservative hawks who brought Obama to this — it was three strong-minded women, interventionists from the left-wing camp: Samantha Power, former professor at Harvard and now a human rights advocate in the National Security Council; Susan Rice, a U.N. ambassador; and Gayle Smith, an important voice at the Center for American Progress, the think tank of Obama’s policies. Under Bill Clinton, Smith was also responsible for Africa in the NSC. For all three women, the U.S. not intervening in the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 was a defining moment. In retrospect, Bill Clinton calls it one if his worst mistakes. When it comes to the lessons for Libya, at the beginning of last week, Hillary Clinton also switched camps — to the one that favored an intervention. She did this willingly, once she had spoken with representatives of the Libyan opposition in Paris.

On March 9-16 the White House held daily crisis meetings where they argued — mostly quietly and in a concentrated manner, now and then passionately, with rare exceptions of raised voices. Obama does not like it when tempers run high. He is very sympathetic toward liberation movements, but he avoids taking risks. Robert Gates, the U.S. secretary of Defense; Thomas Donilon, national security advisor in the Obama administration; and his deputy, Denis McDonough, were the spokespeople for the skeptics. They believed it to be far too risky for the atmosphere in the Arab world if it looked like the U.S. wanted to force a particular political result with violence. They added that the armed forces could not wage a third long-lasting war because of Iraq and Afghanistan. They certainly could not provide ground troops for further nation-building if, after the fall of Gadhafi, a power vacuum were to emerge and foreign armed forces were expected to guarantee security and free elections later on. They also said that even if the mission was limited to the protection of civilians from the air from the start, as it progresses, a current could develop from this, which would haul the U.S. unwillingly into full-blown war. They want to protect Obama from the unpredictable foreign affairs adventure that could distract him from the domestic policy aims or even put his re-election at risk. In 1980, Jimmy Carter came undone over the unsuccessful operation for the freedom of American hostages in Iran.

Ultimately, two factors tipped the scales. First of all, the dynamics on the ground: Gadhafi’s mercenaries retaliated with shocking speed. Secondly, Obama received what he believed to be crucial — a leading role by Arab states in the front against Gadhafi. The Arab League demanded the no-fly zone. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia promised that their air forces would play a part against Libya. According to the portrayal in the American media, Egypt is already delivering weapons to the rebels.

Obama is standing by his wish for the U.S. to not have a leading role in this war. He defines the mission much more explicitly than France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. Obama said the U.S. had “a well-defined goal … the protection of civilians in Libya,” whereas Sarkozy said: “Gadhafi must go.” French fighter jets are attacking Gadhafi’s troops; the U.S. armed forces have, until now, only taken part in the elimination of the Libyan air defenses. Afterwards, “our European allies and Arab partners” should “enforce the no-fly zone.” In a few days’ time, the U.S. wants to withdraw to a role in the background.

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