3/21/11

The first two nights of airstrikes against Col. Muammar Qaddafi's forces under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 seem to have produced tactical successes: implementing the no-fly zone and stopping a military advance that had threatened to overrun rebels and civilians alike in eastern Libya. They have also laid bare a set of gaping questions about the goals of the operation, the role of the U.S. going forward and the appropriate role of Congress in overseeing U.S. military action abroad. Those questions deserve answers - not political posturing from 2012 hopefuls.

Early strikes a tactical success. Coalition forces achieved the initial tactical goals of the military campaign in Libya over the weekend.

No-fly zone implemented. Early strikes prompted Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen to announce that "a no-fly zone over Libya to ground Gadhafi's warplanes - a prime goal of the attacks - was effectively in place and that a loyalist advance on the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi had been halted," reports McClatchy. [McClatchy, 3/21/11]

Preventing rebels from being overrun in Benghazi. The Wall Street Journal reports, "The U.S. and its allies intensified air attacks against forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi on Sunday, keeping anti-Gadhafi rebels from being immediately overrun and bringing a reprieve to the increasingly desperate pro-democracy uprising." [WSJ, 3/21/11]

Protecting civilians. Voice of America  reports that, "Libyan opposition forces celebrated the allied military action which cleared the highway south of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. It was part of assaults that also included setting up a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians from government forces. After regrouping Monday, the rebels pushed back against troops loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi and were moving on the next major town, Adjabiya, where government positions came under attack early in the day. But opposition sources in the western town of Misrata said government troops continue to encircle the town, using civilians as a shield against any attack by foreign forces. Their accounts could not be independently verified." [VOA, 3/21/11]

Goals and objectives unclear regarding next steps. Admiral Michael Mullen said yesterday, "I think it's very uncertain on how this ends. What we're focused on now though, is a guy who has killed his own civilians ruthlessly in the past, being in a position where that stops." This uncertainty is also rippling across NATO allies and the Arab League and will have to be addressed clearly.  Neither the humanitarian goals of the UN resolution nor the broader goal of regime change expressed by numerous world leaders seems likely to be resolved quickly.  Prior international enforcement efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere extended for months and through great controversy without the intense media cycle that we live in now. [Michael Mullen, 3/21/11]

Need for legitimate questions at home, not political posturing.

Constitutional authority:  The New York Times reports that, "A coalition of liberal Democrats voiced objections, arguing that the president overstepped his authority by not seeking Congressional approval before authorizing the airstrikes." James Fallows of the Atlantic magazine further explains this view on the commitment: "it cannot reassure anyone who cares about America's viability as a republic that it is entering another war with essentially zero Congressional consultation or ‘buy-in,' and with very little serious debate outside the Executive Branch itself."

... And then what?  James Fallows writes, "The most predictable failure in modern American military policy has been the reluctance to ask, And what happens then? We invade Iraq to push Saddam Hussein from power. Good. What happens then? Obama increases our commitment in Afghanistan and says that ‘success' depends on the formation of a legitimate, honest Afghan government on a certain timetable. The deadline passes. What happens then? One reason why Pentagon officials, as opposed to many politicians, have generally been cool to the idea of ‘preventive' strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is that many have gone through the exercise of asking, What happens then? Launching air strikes is the easiest, most exciting, and most dependably successful stage of a modern war... But after this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don't?" [James Fallows, 3/20/11]

Political debate shies away from these real questions in favor of partisan ones: The New York Times reports that, "some Republicans suggested that Mr. Obama had waited too long to protect the rebels against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, had been too reluctant to employ American power and had not clearly explained the objectives of the action. Their comments maintained a pattern of attacking Mr. Obama as a weak leader at home and abroad." But Politico reports that, "After demanding for weeks that he be more decisive on Libya, not one candidate in the field of 2012 GOP hopefuls has expressed support for President Barack Obama since he began bombing the North African nation. The GOP's presidential prospects either sharply criticized the commander-in-chief this weekend or avoided weighing in... Perhaps these seven really are quietly rallying behind the commander-in-chief in a time of war, but a more likely explanation is that these potential candidates are waiting to see how the fluid situation develops and watching for what their main rivals say first. That silence is another reminder of the dearth of foreign policy experience among the main GOP contenders." [NY Times, 3/20/11. Politico, 3/21/11]

What We're Reading

An international missile strike has reportedly destroyed one of Muammar Qaddafi's headquarters buildings in Tripoli after U.S., French and British planes continued airstrikes for a second night.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin strongly criticized the international intervention in Libya, comparing it to the Crusades.

Workers were temporarily evacuated after smoke began to rise from two of the reactors at the stricken Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant.

Three senior Yemeni generals defected from President Saleh's government. 

Egyptian voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum on changes to the country's constitution.

Google says China is interfering with its email services. 

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual has resigned over controversy surrounding WikiLeaks cables on Mexico's handling of the drug war.  

Vote counting is under way after Haiti's delayed presidential run-off passed off largely peacefully.

The far-right National Front (FN) party has gained ground in French local elections, with preliminary results suggesting the UMP party of President Nicolas Sarkozy has fared badly.

Thousands of youths are enlisting to fight for embattled Ivory Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo. 

Commentary of the Day

Doyle McManus writes that by not taking the lead in Libya, the U.S. can create a new model for collaboration in global crises.

Christian Caryl says that just as it has in the past, Japan can turn this moment of devastation into an opportunity for growth and reform.

David Avital and David Halperin explain how Morocco could become a model for a modern, prosperous Muslim state.