Obama Administration Right on Libya, So Far

Obama Administration Right on Libya, So Far

Obama Administration Right on Libya, So Far

The White House has rejected calls from neocons, McCain and the Washington Post to use force.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The Obama administration deserves a lot of credit, so far, for its forbearance over Libya. As it did with Egypt, refusing to move aggressively against Mubarak while making it clear that the United States wanted him to quit, in Libya the United States has essentially rejected a no-fly zone, stayed away from threats of military attack against Qaddafi’s positions, and hasn’t moved too fast to recognize or provide aid to the Libyan rebels.

In Egypt, the Obama administration was attacked from the left (and by neoconservatives), who charged that the United States was trying to shore up the US-Egyptian alliance. In Libya, the administration is under fire mostly from the right, from the likes of John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, and from liberal interventionists, such as the editorial writers for the Washington Post, who vilify Obama for giving Qaddafi a free pass. The truth is that, in both cases, the Obama administration has carefully navigated a very difficult situation, trying above all not to make it appear as if the region-wide Arab revolt is orchestrated by Washington.

That hasn’t stopped various leaders, from Mubarak to Qaddafi to Yemen’s President Saleh, from accusing the United States, the UK and Israel—as well as Al Qaeda—of covertly controlling the revolt.

But here’s an important quote, from the Times, by an Obama administration official that seems to make it clear that they understand why the United States has to approach the Arab revolt cautiously:

“There’s a great temptation to stand up and say, ‘We’ll help you rid the country of a dictator.’ But the president has been clear that what’s sweeping across the Middle East is organic to the region, and as soon as we become a military player, we’re at risk of falling into the old trap that Americans are stage-managing events for their own benefit.”

Exactly right. So what can the United States do, in the case of Libya? A very bad option is to impose a no-fly zone, as I argued last week. Let us count the reasons. It won’t be decisive, since most of the fighting will be on the ground. It will look, to all the world, especially to the Arabs, like yet another US attack on an Arab country. It will be extremely cumbersome and difficult to maintain, and its implementation, including bombing runs against air defense systems in urban areas, will cause lot of casualties. It will be opposed by Russia, China and many Arab states, among others, so it will have to be done through NATO, unilaterally, not through the United Nations.

Neither the US military nor Secretary of Defense Gates are enthusiastic. Gates has spoken out most forcefully, reflecting the military’s opinion that a no-fly zone is a nonstarter and could backfire politically. Flanked by Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Cheifs, Gates warned against the fact that a no-fly zone in Libya would be perceived as America’s third war against a Muslim country. On Capitol Hill yesterday, Gates added:

“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that’s the way it starts.”

So far, Qaddafi has made only limited use of his air force in counterattacking rebels. Mostly, he’s used it to bomb arms depots before they could fall into rebel hands, although yesterday, during a battle between rebels and the loyalist army in Brega, a mid-country coastal town, the air force did drop bombs, with limited effectiveness. The rebels have captured and are using anti-aircraft systems, so they are not completely defenseless. And it remains to be seen if Qaddafi’s pilots will follow orders, since some have already defected.

The Arab League, based in Cairo and under the leadership of Amr Moussa, an establishment figure who has declared his intention to run for president in Egypt, has suggested that it might operate a no-fly zone in Libya, a far more preferable strategy to an American-led one. But it’s hard to imagine Arab air forces putting their aircraft under Arab League command, especially since the planes would come mostly from the gulf states and Jordan, who have their own rebel problems.

Like this Blog Post? Read it on the Nation’s free iPhone App, NationNow.

 

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x