Gaddafi Stays On Message While The US Doesn't Have One

It would be easy to admire Gaddafi's tenacity if, indeed, he had any other option.  With an International Criminal Court indictment hanging over his head and very few safe havens to contemplate, Gaddafi has little choice other than to fight on.  As a result it is a no-brainer to see why Brother Leader has stayed on message.

The brain sweat comes in with a question.  Why is it necessary for the US, the assorted European states, the members of the Arab League, and African Union to make it so much easier for the Colonel to keep on keeping on?  Why do all these players seem to have an agenda calculated to assure that not only will Gaddafi maintain power, he will be around to cause enormous amounts of trouble until and unless the indirect pressures of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation take effect?

The Arab League has walked back from its walk back concerning the imposition of the no-fly zone--"What!  You mean you have to fire missiles and drop bombs?"  Apparently working under the assumption that Muslims wouldn't lie about such a matter, the Arab League took Gaddafi's word for appalling civilian casualties but then were convinced just possibly the Gaddfi noise machine was exaggerating the body count.

But the Arab League trepidations found a quick echo in the foreign ministers of both the EU and NATO.  For the last couple of days, the loudest sound in Europe has been that made by knees knocking with fear.  Given that few of the countries represented in either group is noted for resolution in the face of the uncertainties which come with every use of military means, this is no surprise.  It is so unsurprising that it would be a very real shock if the Gaddafi family--some of whose members are very well acquainted with Western ways--had not counted upon this sort of division and worked assiduously to provoke it.

The opposition which has come from one of the Boys in the Kremlin and the Trolls of Beijing is also no shock.  Again it was so expectable that it bends the mind to believe that once again the Gaddafi family was not counting upon it.  The offers by the Gaddafi family to cancel the current oil and natural gas leases and offer them to other countries including China, Russia, and India show some base cunning at work.  The pursuit of divide and conquer particularly with assemblages which are already divided needs no deep thinking.  The payoff has been handsome with India, Brazil, and South Africa joining Russia and China in a chorus of very loud denunciation.

Public support within the US and UK for the current ill and perhaps mis-defined military mission runs around one in three.  It may be higher in France as its citizens seem to be willing to take pride in their country doing something which is compatible with both national interests and national values.  However, the low support in the US has shown itself in the opposition presented to "Obama's War" from the left, right, and center of both parties.

Much of the opposition is predicated upon the all too obvious dichotomy between the goals of the current air operations and the Obama declaratory policy which holds, "Gaddafi must go."  The lack of congruence between the stated goals and the declaratory policy is guaranteed to undercut public confidence and, thus, support for the effort.  President Obama has either been very economical with the truth or quite hallucinatory regarding the endgame in Libya.

Other very obvious disconnects between US actions and policy in Libya with its actions and policies elsewhere in the Arab states also undercuts both understanding and support.  We are in an active shooting war with the announced aim of protecting civilians from an arbitrary and brutal regime in Libya while being merely "concerned" when the same is taking place in Yemen albeit on a arguably lesser scale.  The Obama administration has not even worked itself up to the level of being concerned when it comes to the situation in Bahrain, which leads to the conclusion that oil is thicker than blood given the close cooperation between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

The lack of coherent goals couples with distaste for the war against Gaddafi and the fear of upsetting the always sensitive Muslims to provide the interesting lack of eagerness on the part of everyone to take over the lead in Libya.  The Obama administration is quite keen on passing the baton to someone else.  But there is a palpable lack of takers.  Even if NATO showed willingness to do the job, the Arab League has opposed the idea as have NATO members Turkey and France.  Given the need for all decisions to be made by consensus, Turkish and French opposition kills the concept.

Perhaps France is angling for the job.  Assuming the command and control resident with French forces is up to the job, there is no objection to this.  Even the subordination of American combat units to such a command has precedent.  In this context it might be recalled that the US handed over command during the Dominican Republic intervention in 1965 to Brazil.  American combat forces including ground units served as a part of an Organization of American States task group with the complete approval of the US Congress and media of the day.

Perhaps the muscular and ambitious Nicholas Sarkozy, who has done more than any other single person to push for the current intervention without a salient goal, is or will have second thoughts as the gravity of the "what next?" question sinks in.  There can not be a single observer well oriented in time and place who believes the no-fly zone even with the add-on of strikes against Gaddifi's forces will provide for a stable, secure outcome.  The current operation will not and can not remove Gaddafi and without this there is no possibility of an outcome even tangentially favorable to Western interests and values.

In the best case the current operation will end with Libya divided into two zones.  The eastern one will remain under Gaddafi.  The western one will eventually fall under the sway of advocates of violent political Islam.  All must remember that the west, Cyrenaica, was not only the fountainhead of insurgency against Italy but also the homeland of a very austere form of Islam derived from the old Salifist doctrine.  This is a connection which is as true today as it was a century ago.  We must not forget or overlook this ground truth.

The policies and actions of the West are riddled with internal contradictions.  They are laden with ambiguities. They are freighted with uncertainties to a degree surpassing previous "optional" wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is no surprise that support for the effort is narrow and very shallow.

All that can be written with certainty is that the world will be a nastier and more fearful place should Gaddafi remain in power even over a truncated form of Libya.  It is equally certain that in war unlike other forms of human endeavor, a full loaf is infinitely preferable to a half loaf.  And, what is being done right now is a half loaf approach at best.