Libya is a Mess

Libya remains a mess. As a number of us pointed out at the outset of this adventure (see previous Libya posts), equivocation about objectives, lack of applying sufficient force soon enough, and confusion within our alliance guaranteed that we would be where we are right now. President Obama has told us that we went into Libya for humanitarian reasons, yet more people are dying now than would have if we had stayed out, and the long term dislocation that is going on in infrastructure and interpersonal relations is far greater than would have been the case absent our involvement. I don't like Gaddafi and agree with most that Libya and the rest of the world would be a better place if he were not in control of that country, but this is not the way to get rid of him.

Libya is another example of this administration's amateurism, and it is understandably stimulating further concern among our allies and delight within the ranks of our enemies. My assumption continues to be that Mr. Obama is sincere in trying to do what he believes is just and right. In the case of Libya, I assume that he did not want to get involved, but pressure from France and Britain forced his hand. Britain in particular would be hard to turn down, given their loyal support of this country in enumerable international conflicts over many decades. I am not privy to the innermost workings of all of this, but I assume that Secretary of State Clinton was right in the middle of planning and executing this policy. My impression is that she helped craft this policy and that not only surprises me, but also disappoints me. I had thought her to be a wiser person.

So where do we go now? Mission creep is, of course, alive and well. More French and British boots are being put on the ground. The rebel force is being supplied by Britain, France, the United States and the United Nations. Interestingly, the United Nations is also trying to establish a relief office in Tripoli. Various organizations are attempting to broker peace negotiations between the two sides. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces continue to find effective ways to pound rebel positions and more and more people realize how limited air power is in a situation like this. All the while, the White House is attempting to say that we are no longer really involved, having handed the problem off to NATO.

The rest of the world has a different view of what is going on and it is not flattering to the United States. At best we are seen as bumbling idealists (and that may be close to the truth). At worst we are an increasingly helpless Gulliver being tied down by increasingly numerous Lilliputian challenges (and that too may be true). This particular case of ineptitude is almost certainly going to do more to weaken our relations with Europe than almost anything else going on right now except our debt problem. At some point our unwillingness to fully support the Libyan effort is going to cause our British allies to ask where we were when they needed us. Given that they were alongside us when the going got tough in Korea and VietNam and Afghanistan and Iraq as well as countless other conflicts around this troubled world, I am very glad that I do not have to answer that question face to face with a Brit.

How we purport ourselves in the world is vitally important to our welfare. This administration is not doing a good job in managing our foreign relations and I fault both our president and our secretary of state. It is another reason why we must elect more intelligent leadership in 2012.