To What End?

Beginning on Saturday, March 19^th, eight years to the day since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US naval and air power with a coalition of states began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libyan air space. Operation Odyssey Dawn, as the mission has been codenamed, was initiated as an international response to Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi's use of air power against civilian protesters at first, and now against the growing Libyan rebel opposition. The coalition states include the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and with Belgian, Danish, Italian, and Spanish forces placed under US command.

President Obama has said that the mission is “not the outcome the US or any of our partners have sought,” but he also added that, “we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.” While nearly all can agree that Qaddafi was indeed a tyrant of the purest form, questions regarding whether or not the we as the coalition will be able to maintain a limited role in the revolution, and not resort to escalation, especially the use of ground forces.

For the US and President Obama, this mission in Libya holds great significance as one of the few times when the US has gone to war over humanitarian concerns, and not so much for its own immediate national interests. At least it appears that way. Many seem to forget or overlook al-Qaddafi's ideological and financial support for terrorism; the Lockerbie bombing being the most well known example. However, the mission is also a departure from typical US military action.

For one thing, the US has a difficult time with getting involved in a conflict and not seeing a “total victory.” This tends to go against much of the culture within the military as well as the public's view of the US's overwhelming military power. The most well-known example of when the US military intervened in a limited role was during the crisis in Bosnia in 1994-1995, when a coalition under US leadership was able to convince both sides to sign the Dayton Peace Accords.

The President's repeated statements have said the US will not maintain a leadership role, but control will be handed over to “one of our partners.” But, when Obama stated that “US policy is that Qaddafi must go,” many believed this had opened him and the US up to more criticism. How can the US maintain such a policy if it was unwilling to play the primary role in the conflict?

The obvious difference between Bosnia and the Libyan crisis today is that you have a leader who is unwilling to remove himself from power and will utilize any tools of force he has to remain in power. The US was able to successfully leverage “hard” military power with “soft” diplomatic power to bring an end to bloodshed and begin a road to peace. But Qaddafi continues to be defiant, and given his irrational pattern of behavior, it is a one in a million chance that he will agree to concessions of power. Perhaps the only way that he will agree to leave is if he is offered the means to “retire” to a vila somewhere in Africa (some states in the continent have benefited financially from his “generosity”). Although it would not be the ideal that justice would demand, would it be more expedient to remove him and stop the violence?

Whatever outcome is pursued to bring peace in Libya now that NATO has agreed to assume the mission, and if the policy is “Qaddafi must go,” it remains highly unlikely that the US will not continue to play the vital leadership role.

-Albert Ames