More on Libya

Moammar Gadhafi was killed, ending his 40+ years ruling Libya.  This makes the fourth major shake-up in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region this year, along with the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the government overthrow in Tunisia, and the division of the Sudan into two nations.  Particularly, the lack of coverage on the Sudan was disappointing to me in that it’s a big deal when we need to start making new globes and world maps.  We also recently deployed some special forces into Uganda, but that’s not getting much press coverage, either. 

This makes a great time to lay out some thoughts on Libya.  I’ve written previously about Obama and the War Powers Act (WPA), so I won’t belabor that point too much except to say that nothing in the past few months, including the recent events, has changed my views that Obama violated the WPA, that the WPA is constitutional, that this is an impeachable offense, and that the GOP won’t press to impeach.  Aside from the legalities, the only real criticism I have of this whole ordeal is our government’s general inability to tell the story and clearly answer the public’s questions.  These criticisms, though they may sound trivial, are actually very important because if both were handled properly, I believe Obama would have enjoyed much greater popular support for this endeavor.  Personally, the lack of clarity was the biggest thing that kept me in a more neutral position on the matter versus supporting/opposing the measure. 

Another thing that makes my criticisms look trivial is the fact that I’m not really attacking the goals, strategies, and tactics used, as those looked pretty sound to me.  Given we already had significant military commitments elsewhere, we simply were not in the position to take the lead on this operation.  And nor should we have.  Humanitarian concerns aside, a stable Libya is much more vital to Europe’s interests than our own.  As I said before, Libya wasn’t really a threat to us and we don’t get much oil from them.  I can appreciate the criticism of leading from behind because it sort of does make America and Obama look weak, but the fact that we shouldn’t have been leading this charge alone in the first place mutes that attack somewhat (not entirely because perceptions of strength and weakness are a critical component of foreign policy). 

Speaking of Obama, I see multiple political angles here for him.  One, I think he was looking for an opportunity to try his multilateral approach versus Bush Jr.’s more unilateral approach.  Obama will trumpet this on the campaign trail, provided the situation in Libya doesn’t degenerate in the next year, in which case he will try to sweep it under the rug.  Two, I think the American government felt like it owed one to the Europeans because of Iraq, thus adding a new motive to our involvement and possibly providing another facet to answering the question of why we went to Libya in the first place.  Three, Obama can build upon his record of dealing with enemies of America.  He can build his credibility on foreign policy now that he has a list of accomplishments that includes Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Moammar Gadhafi.  Obama still has some perceptions of foreign policy errors to address, (like his sloth on signing trade agreements and his timidity with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China to a degree, yet they are a very special case), but he now has a list of accomplishments to buffer those weaknesses. 

In the end, however, this isn’t about Obama or the GOP or really even the American people.  It’s about the people of Libya.  I’m hopeful for the Libyan people that this is a turning point for them for the better.  Let’s hope they don’t end up replacing Gadhafi with something worse.  It’s hard to imagine given how bad Gadhafi was, but it’s not an impossibility.  These are some crucial days coming up for them and only time will tell.