"War by Committee - Will it Work?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“War by Committee – Will it Work?”

March 23, 2011

Waging war by committee may satisfy the desires of those who disapproved the unilateralism of George W. Bush, but it may lose more in efficiency than it gains in principle. An article on the front page of yesterday’s Financial Times made the bickering among the European partners seem like the nattering of school girls. A western official said: “There are major tensions between the US-UK and the French.” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Council, blasted the French for impeding NATO by kicking off the operation without notifying its partners, and he disparaged the Germans for lack of participation. In the country with bases closest to Libya, Franco Frattini, Italian foreign minister, was reported to have said, “Italy will begin reflecting on the uses of its bases for the Libya operation if there is a multiplication of command centres.” The use of “reflecting” is as disconcerting as is the idiocy of “multiple command centres.” Will the left hand know what the right is doing? Will it care?

The stated mission in Libya is clear, in a somewhat fuzzy way. United Nations Security Resolution 1973 states that the mission is “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” However, in recent weeks Barack Obama, Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron – the main players in the coalition – have all said they want to see Muammar Gadhafi removed from power. What’s a general to do?

U.S. domestic support for a war in Libya lasting more than a few weeks is essentially nonexistent and is unlikely to broaden as time goes by. The President, while seeking and receiving UN backing for Operation Odyssey Dawn, did not ask for Congressional approval. Members from both parties have voiced concerns. It is possible, of course, that a missile or bomb might find Mr. Gadhafi in his Bab al-Azizia Compound, but given the UN’s publically stated mission statement, it is far more likely that the gentleman has surrounded himself with women and children. If he were killed, the incident would be celebrated by the world; we all wish it happens, but the odds don’t favor it. Like Saddam Hussein in 1991, it is probable that Mr. Gadhafi will live to fight another day.

The Middle East has always been a conundrum. It still is. The Arab League’s endorsement of a no-fly zone was one reason Mr. Obama reversed himself and decided that the U.S. should join the coalition. But now, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the Arab League has apparently contradicted its earlier stand and today condemns the West’s broad bombing campaign, and Turkey, compounding the problem, has blocked NATO’s mission in Libya.

President Obama, in his desire to be the anti-Bush, has largely abandoned his predecessor’s Freedom Agenda, which had argued that all people, regardless of race or culture, seek freedom and democracy. Demonstrations in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain are suggestive that Mr. Bush was right. Mr. Bush has been much maligned for Iraq, yet Iraq is one of the few Middle Eastern countries whose citizens have not needed to demonstrate for freedom, even though their democracy is young and fragile. An irony, not lost on protestors in the Middle East, and as explained by Fouad Ajami in today’s Wall Street Journal, is that the liberal Mr. Obama who spoke so eloquently about a new relationship with the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago, has proved to be less a friend of democracy-seekers in the Middle East than the conservative Mr. Bush.

Colonel Gadhafi has proved himself a coward when faced with a determined opposition. He did so in late 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, when he abandoned his program of developing weapons of mass destruction. He immediately called for a cease-fire when the U.S. agreed to impose a no-fly zone. Had the U.S. and the West shown more determination earlier and had we recognized the rebels at once, fewer casualties would likely have ensued. Finally, a month into the rebellion, as Gadhafi’s troops were laying siege to Benghazi, with promises to kill the rebels hiding in closets and under beds, President Obama was forced to join the cause on humanitarian grounds.

Whether the committee forged to wage war on Mr. Gadhafi succeeds remains to be seen. The handover to NATO, or some collection of European powers, should take place in the next few days. In a sense, it is a test of an Obama Policy that subsumes, but hopefully will not dilute, our might to international bodies. Mr. Obama wants America to be seen as a partner, not a leader, a bully or an instigator. If successful, the policy will gain traction, but the risk is that committees cannot wage wars, and we lose respect and our identity of exceptionalism.

In the meantime, Iran appears to be licking its chops as it surveys the chaos throughout the Arab world. A crisis, Mr. Ahmadinejad might have said, is a terrible thing to waste. Iran is the most destructive force in the Middle East. They should stay in our sights. Our interests in Saudi Arabia’s oil means defending that regime, if necessary. It will be interesting to see if the Obama Policy, with its war by committee, has the fortitude to stand up to far more serious problems that surely lie ahead.