Get out of Libya now

Get out of Libya now
A third Middle East war would destroy all remaining U.S. credibility in the region
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The United States has started a third war in the Middle East, the Libyan adventure joining the 8-year-old, misbegotten Iraq project and the originally justified but no longer justifiable 10-year-old war in Afghanistan.

How does this happen? Apart from the understandable desire to punish al-Qaida in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack, most Americans couldn't care less about Iraq and Libya and, for that matter, Afghanistan, except as the staging area for the 2001 attack.

Americans are much more concerned about the circumstances of their daily lives than they are about whether Moammar Gadhafi's forces take Benghazi. They're worried about jobs, transport, the cost of gas, tax rates, safe water and whether the abominable potholes tear off their tires.

At one time we probably could have afforded to deal with three wars and domestic problems. Now, not.

A Tomahawk missile costs $3 million to $4 million. We have shot hundreds into Libya so far. Think of that at a time when we are firing teachers and not doing the various equivalents of fixing potholes across the country. Instead we're spending tax money to fire missiles into Libya, sending armed drones over the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and propping up the increasingly corrupt, illegitimate governments of our making in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why are we not acting on America's real priorities?

It's not like we don't get it. Many Americans who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 wanted change they could believe in. That turns out to have been just another tacky slogan, but it probably makes no sense to weep in retrospect now, particularly contemplating the national embarrassment that would have ensued if Sen. John McCain and half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had won.

So here's where we are now.

It appears Mr. Obama took us to war in Libya at the behest of three senior women in his administration: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, senior adviser Samantha Power and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. There may have been other advocates.

Against war in Libya apparently were Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, although they remain loyally quiet as the missiles and planes fly. They at least knew that the F15E plane that crashed in Libya Tuesday cost $30 million.

Then there is the question of allies and coalitions.

President George H. W. Bush's first Gulf war coalition was the model -- 30-some nations, including Arabs, with them footing most of the bill. President George W. Bush had NATO backing in Afghanistan and started in Iraq with a "coalition of the willing," although it faded in the stretch.

Mr. Obama's alliance for the Libya war is a joke and could even destroy NATO, a 61-year-old organization. The alliance includes the United States, the United Kingdom, France and token participation by Denmark and Belgium. Italy is providing bases for the moment, although its government is fracturing over the question. Italy is vulnerable to Libyan migration and potential retaliation.

The Arab League initially supported international intervention but has yet to provide any air assets, even though most of its 22 members have air forces. Qatar is promising to send something sometime. The African Union opposes the war and held a summit in neighboring Mauritania this week to say so.

It is hard to estimate to what degree the increasingly ambivalent attitude toward the Western attack on the part of other Arabs reflects the question, "Could this happen to us?" and how much is due to Mr. Gadhafi's staying power in the face of the onslaught.

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have the best reason to ask the question. The Saudis and the UAE sent forces into Bahrain last week to bring under control Bahrainis protesting the continued rule of King Hamad bin Issas al-Khalifa and his family. What if, instead of remaining discreetly silent as Saudi armored forces rolled into Bahrain, the Obama administration had decided that the lives of civilian Bahrainis were at risk -- the ostensible justification for the attack on Libya -- and unleashed air attacks on the Saudi troops?

Two other critical ingredients were missing from Mr. Obama's decision to take America to war in Libya.

There was no congressional debate. A few members commented, most prominently Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry, who may be angling to take Ms. Clinton's job as secretary of state if there is a second Obama administration. He likes the war.

Nor is there any clear idea of where it all ends -- even on the part of the Obama warhawks. What if -- as is most likely -- the no-fly zone is imposed and the rebels are still unable to knock over Mr. Gadhafi's government?

The rebels' disarray is manifest. They are for the most part small tribal militias, operating without discipline, command or control. Would anyone like to see U.S. armed forces or the CIA go into Libya and try to turn them into an effective fighting force? Or, try, in those dreaded words, to "nation build?"

In case anyone is tempted, think what a great job we have done with the Karzai regime in Afghanistan and the al-Maliki government in Iraq.

The Obama administration needs to quickly end this debacle before it destroys all American credibility in the Middle East, and even in NATO. Mr. Gadhafi's people already are calling the Western powers "the Crusader enemy," hearkening back to the very bad old days of the region. (Saladin won; the Crusaders lost.)

The Obama people profess to want to hand over operational control of the war to someone else. The problem is that NATO doesn't want to adopt the effort and none of the few other countries involved seems eager to assume responsibility.

So let's just stop and go home now. The war makes no sense and costs way too much. Call it a learning experience for Mr. Obama's inner circle.