Well, now that we're a few days into Obama's phony war, I suppose we can address with a bit more clarity what the christ is going on and why whatever it is is going on is going on - or not - because, you see, no one really seems to know - I mean, there are lots of theories of what this is or isn't or may be or should be, some insisting Obama knows exactly what he's doing, some insisting the man hasn't a god damn clue what he's doing - but one tends to believe confusion of this sort does not bode well. We do know that Obama didn't judge it necessary to share with the American people what his plans were/are nor with the congress of said people - whether that's a sign of the man being so confident is in his own capabilities that he has no problem whatsoever of entirely ignoring the advise and consent rights of the country he ostensibly leads - or whether that's an indication of how entirely lost at sea the man is and how rushed and ill conceived this endeavor is - well, that's another thing we just don't know. Given that no one in the administration closely involved with this 'war' can answer the question of whether or not regime change is the goal here - and in fact can give entirely contradictory answers to that question within hours of each other - given that I gotta believe it's the latter, ie, they really don't know what the fuck they're doing or they do know but what they know makes little sense.
We can say two things with some semblance of certainty - one, this mission was conceived as an humanitarian effort, but we do not know if at this conception the possibility of it becoming more than that was discussed, thoroughly considered, dismissed, provisionally ruled out, whatever - it's clear that the language of the UN resolution opens the door for something more, but whether that was the intention or merely an oversight, that we don't know - and two, it's reasonably clear that Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen are not big fans of their president's initiative here - they're playing the good soldiers, but one doesn't have to strain too hard to hear the intimations of disapproval when they're before a microphone.
I suppose the one thing we do know with something close to absolute certainty here is that America's role is to be seen as subordinate to the leadership of the coalition - and yet still this one seeming certainty is fraught with confusion: is this subordinated role for America a result of Obama embracing the wistful left wing idealism of Samantha Powers et al that longs to see the evil, imperialistic Yankee war machine house broken so as to better serve benevolent progressivism everywhere? or is this putatively truncated American presence Obama conceding one point to his generals and making a concerted effort to forestall the looming danger of mission creep? If it's the former, that's bad and this will end badly - if it's the latter, that's better, but it's still more than likely gonna end badly.
Why the cynicism? On a broader, one might say conceptual level, as I've said before I have no faith in the forced marriage of Islam and democracy - and let's not fool ourselves, it is and will be a forced marriage - the child produced may have democratic features, but it's still gonna be hidden more or less behind a burqa and beholden to Allah before all else - until that defining dynamic changes, is loosened, breaks down, whatever manages to pass for democracy in the Mideast will remain compatible to Western norms in name only - if you notice, all those calling for American activism in these uprisings and storms of discontent make the seemingly unquestioned assumption that after all is said and done what we'll find at the end of the rainbow is a big pot of liberal democracy - I don't buy that for a second, and in fact believe that it's as likely that what follows will be just as bad if not worse than what preceded, at least as far as Western strategic interests are concerned. Sure, if we could get away with a reprise of what jolly old England did in India, maybe one could consider it - but we can't get away with it, and even if we could, Iraq and Afghanistan have decisively swept the notion off the table - all that work and sacrifice in Iraq and would it surprise anyone if along with Turkey and Syria they're part of a Persian led, China backed anti-Western hegemony ten years from now?
But put that speculation aside - there are practical reasons aplenty to be cynical about 'Obama's war'. You can call it an humanitarian intervention if you like, but unless the rebels throw down their arms and a miraculous truce is negotiated what you're really doing is choosing sides in a civil war - and then the problem becomes how far do you go in supporting 'your' side? And if your side wins, what then? Best case scenario, you win and you're left caring for a tribal society incapable of governing itself, putting down ancillary civil wars and insurgencies for god knows how long, dealing with incursions from Islamists and Iranian agents looking to stir up trouble [does anyone think the recent terrorist actions in Israel are not related to Libya? How appealing would it be or Iran to force America to defend new aggressions by the IDF knowing full well the French would condemn it?] - and that's the best case scenario! Worst case is your side loses, you look ridiculous and you're stuck with a partitioned Libya and ownership of the broken, impoverished rebel half that you have to hope embraces democracy but may just as well embrace extremism. It's at that point [if not much earlier] the vaunted coalition falls apart and America has to choose to either allow itself to be sucked in to the vacuum or step aside and invite scorn, condemnation and the stain of looking weak, fickle and foolish.
I don't see how one can be anything but cynical - realistically, I'd say Obama had only two choices here: get in early while the rebels had the advantage - that would still have had all the problems associated with it that plague and threaten what he's doing now but would have allowed you the huge advantage of not having to rout Qaddafi from towns he has since taken from rebels - I'd still have consigned America to a largely supporting role but would have made it very clear from the beginning why that had to be and then made it ruthlessly clear that in no way would America's role morph into something larger - if the world wants Qaddafi stopped then let the world accept responsibility for the consequences of that; the other option of course, my choice, was to stay clear of it - I would have accepted American covert operations, along with British and French special forces, sent in to aide the rebels - but no overt US military role in a war fought under the guise of humanitarian comfort or not. Obama has chosen a third option when there really wasn't a third option available - in my opinion you only do that if: one, you don't know what to do and panic when you start seeing your presidency characterized as weak and willing to tolerate the slaughter of innocents; or two, it has been your plan all along to indulge the naive fantasies of liberal anti-imperialists - but if this was a deliberate plan - and hell, I could be completely wrong here, who knows - but if this was a deliberate strategy Obama's even more of a disaster of a president that I'd imagined.
But hell, let's amuse ourselves and assume 'everything' goes well here [and by 'going well' I mean it's ugly but still a tad prettier than the alternatives] - what will we have gained from the Obama doctrine? The US military tethered to a UN sanctioned and led intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign state for the purposes of saving peoples lives [although we may end up killing more than we save] and possibly, nobody really seems to know, deposing the current head of government and installing some dubious thing of the UN's choosing that may [sure, why not?] grow into a democracy but may also spawn into something awful and possibly even worse than the thing it replaced - and none of this will really be in the vital interests of the US and it's military - in fact, may prove to be quite counter productive in that regard - but who cares 'cause with this precedent set our military will now be obliged I guess to serve the spurious, incoherent, jaundiced interests of the UN whenever they/it chooses to call on us, which should be often since they're incapable of doing anything on their own? And we're to expect our Marines et al to remain motivated to fight when it becomes clear to them that Obama has decided that it's now their agenda to serve a convoluted world bureaucracy of insipid fantasy and not the stars and stripes of America because, well, ya know, we're all one now? And do it all so China can sit on the sidelines getting rich at our expense? Can I get a yes we can?!
This is a joke, right? No way we were stupid enough to make this guy president.
[Then again, maybe I should walk this back a bit - I'm so used to seeing Obama in nothing but negative terms it's possible I'm missing a strategy here that isn't all bad. His failure to talk up military intervention with the nation and congress, no matter how limited, prior to committing to it looks flawed, ill advised and possibly unconstitutional - unless he felt that promising to get rid of Qaddafi wasn't possible because of the limited role the American military would be playing but he didn't want Qaddafi to know that - if that was their plan it's not a horrible idea but I don't think it's worked quite as they would have hoped - Qaddafi doesn't appear fooled and besides he has no option but to fight as if regime change is the goal - besides, Americans don't like their military being used in such an indecisive and mincing way - and I imagine the military itself doesn't appreciate it much either - still, it's part of Obama's liberal mindset to see the US military in these terms and so one can argue that's exactly how he's using it - I think it's misguided and impractical and possibly an abuse of the constitution - but it fits the man's ideology and therefore possibly not as illogical and poorly thought out as first appears.
By the same token this may explain his inability to act earlier - in effect, he doesn't really want the rebels to 'win', or rather, doesn't want the US military being sucked into a situation where a putative win becomes dependent on American intervention - so his real goal here was to save Benghazi and then sit back and wait for a truce to materialize and make sure France et al become responsible for or take the lead in this. Again, this may be a flawed plan but isn't entirely crazy - it's dependent on the rebels choosing not to press the fight, Qaddafi being willing to compromise and France et al not trying to bite off more than they can chew - and it's a strategy that relies on the possible delusion or wishful thinking that America can contribute as a subordinate but not be held responsible as a principal when things go wrong, as they most likely will - so, a plan with lots of risk and downside, but not entirely crazy.
Still, seen in these terms, what at first looks like an inept manifestation of liberal notions of anti-imperialist multilateralism or just plain old strategic incoherence starts to look somewhat coherent and possibly even rooted in a modest realism - a strategy misguided all the same I think, and fraught with problems both conceptual and practical - not to mention all the assuming one has to do, which I don't think is quite in keeping with the ideals of representational democracy and limited gov't - but, giving Obama some benefit of the doubt here, not necessarily as clueless as it seems]
