Unanswered questions about Libya

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51862.html#ixzz1HWZk3wpv

VIDEOS INCLUDED AT ABOVE WEB SITE


Unanswered questions about Libya
By: Glenn Thrush and Abby Phillip
March 24, 2011 04:31 AM EDT

It’s hard to find a precedent for a president ordering U.S. military forces into action, then heading off for a five-day tour of Latin America, but that’s just what President Barack Obama did when he approved the deployment of air and naval assets to establish a no-fly zone over Libya.

His homecoming gift is a barrage of questions about the military action Obama aides refuse to label a “war.”

Obama was asked the most obvious question — what is the U.S. endgame in Libya? — several times during his trip. His answers seemed deliberately obtuse: To stop a humanitarian crisis and, hopefully, drive Muammar Qadhafi from power, while at the same time ceding leadership of the effort to countries with a direct regional stake in the outcome — France and Arab League nations — sooner rather than later.

But here are four more questions, whose answers will likely determine whether Libya is a foreign policy success or failure for Obama:

Can we really get out fast?

As attacks on Libya entered their fifth day, American aircraft have been increasingly bearing the brunt of front-line combat operations – flying 113 of the 175 sorties conducted over the last 24 hours — despite repeated assurances from the White House and State Department that the U.S. was about to take a back seat. (Related: Obama: Allies to take Libya lead soon)

The Obama administration prides itself on moving quickly in times of crisis, but this time they have moved so quickly to counter Qadhafi’s threat to rebels they were forced to create a command structure “on the fly,” in the words of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The problem is that U.S. partners – France, Britain and Turkey – have spent the past two days squabbling about a new organizational structure to replace what Obama calls the U.S.’s “unique” capacity to quarterback command-and-control functions. (Related: Nicolas Sarkozy’s war)

In other words, we’re ready to turn in the rental car, but can’t find anyone to take the keys and contract.

Obama, said Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan administration defense analyst now with the left-leaning Center for American Progress, is trying to “have the best of all possible worlds. We’re still going to be involved, but we’re not going to be running the show.”

But that makes for a potentially muddled chain of command, an issue that was not settled before the U.S. decided to send in the first missiles.

“It is very dangerous to have confusion about command and control. If people’s lives are at risk and you’re using military forces, you need to have a rather clear understanding as to who’s in charge and who’s making the decisions,” former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who knows a thing or two about the hazards of poor planning, told POLITICO.

“And these unusual debates that are taking place about who’s going to be in command, what military official is going to be in command, which country, I think has to be worrisome for people.”

Still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pronounced herself “relaxed” about the hand-off to U.S. allies in an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer Tuesday night. (Related: Hillary Clinton may testify on Libya)

France? Are you kidding?

There’s one problem with that scenario. While the U.S. is insisting NATO take charge, France, with an assist from Turkey, has thus far blocked NATO from assuming overall command of the mission.

The French argument: A NATO takeover would westernize the effort, discouraging already nervous Arab League countries from stepping up to take combat risks and to defray no-fly zone costs, estimated to be as high $100 million per month.

A gung-ho French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who ordered his planes into combat over Libya on Saturday before the ink on U.N. Resolution 1973 was quite dry, is eager to take a lead role and the White House is equally eager to bow out as quickly as possible (“Days not weeks,” has been Obama’s mantra). But the two sides aren’t yet close to agreement.

Even if a deal is cut, French leadership of the effort raises questions about whether the U.S. and France are on the same page about a complex military coalition requiring patience and tact. And the optics of a U.S. president handing over a sensitive operation to a nation parodied – especially by American conservatives - as the icon of European self-indulgence, are not good.

Then there’s France’s balky relationship with European neighbors, many of them now tilting to the U.S. position on the supremacy of NATO. On Wednesday, for instance, Italy’s foreign minister accused France of being “intransigent” and called on Sarkozy’s advisers to “to return to the rules” of NATO.

The larger problem, warns Scott Carpenter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is that the U.S. wants to cede leadership to France while still shaping the operation — classic back-seat driving.

“The [administration] is trying to cobble together this diplomatic coalition post facto while you already have planes in the air,” he said. “Trying to lead from behind is hard. … It’s very difficult, and it takes time, and it’s fragile and you have to work very, very hard at it.”

Again, Clinton remains confident. “NATO will definitely be involved,” she predicted, “It’s moving forward in the right direction, and we will have what we need in the next few days.” (Related: Hillary Clinton says she'll stay into a second term)

Will Congress rebel?

Obama’s decision to authorize military action was made on short notice and without even the most cursory consultation with congressional leaders beforehand. A coalition of progressive Democrats immediately raised questions about the constitutionality of committing U.S. forces based on a U.N. resolution alone — and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has even threatened Obama with impeachment.

But the more serious threat comes from the right. Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been stone silent on Libya, leaving it to elder Indiana statesman Dick Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — and normally an ally of Obama’s on international issues — to question the lack of an endgame for the Libyan mission or a dedicated revenue stream to pay for it. (Related: What is the Libya endgame?)

And House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who was reportedly infuriated that he was only briefed on the mission by an Obama subordinate on the day the U.N. Security Council resolution passed, seems intent on confronting Obama directly on the issue.

“I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission,” Boehner wrote Wednesday in a less than friendly welcome back letter. (Related: W.H. to Hill: We're not at war)

“In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered. At the same time, by contrast, it appears your administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.”

Boehner isn’t calling for legislative action yet — but he did present Obama with a list of questions he wants answered, including the cost of the mission, along with a demand for “a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose” of the Libyan no fly zone.

Several Democratic senators leapt to Obama’s defense, with Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a friend of the president’s, saying Obama moved quickly to “stop the slaughter of the Libyan people by their own leader.”

And if White House press secretary Jay Carney had any regrets for the lack of consultation he wasn’t showing it. “I would also say that it’s important to remember that in the run-up to this action we were criticized somewhat, in fact fairly frequently, by those who felt like we weren’t moving quickly enough,” he told reporters on the flight back from San Salvador to Washington Wednesday. “And now there are some who are criticizing us for not going — for going too quickly.”

What if Qadhafi holds on?

Clinton and some Obama aides remain confident that airpower will be enough to topple Qadhafi within a relatively short time. But there’s a growing camp inside the administration that believes it will take longer — and if Libya is divided temporarily between Qadhafi-held Tripoli and rebel-controlled strongholds like Benghazi, it is an acceptable medium-term alternative to quick regime change, administration officials told POLITICO.

“The long game” alternative, an Obama adviser said, is boxing the dictator up in his citadel, subjecting him to a blockade and a cut-off of his overseas bank accounts — while allies arm, train, feed and support the ostensibly pro-democracy rebel forces.

“It’s not our first choice,” the person said. “But it could work.”

The downside of that strategy is that Qadhafi will have control over significant territory and be free to persecute or even murder his opponents — if Obama sticks to his no-boots-on-the-ground commitment.

“There is no button in the Pentagon that can be pressed to stop police in Tripoli from firing on innocent protesters,” said the Human Rights Council’s Tom Malinowski. “And I think that’s broadly understood.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the day House Speaker John Boehner was briefed on the Libyan mission. The briefing occurred last Thursday, the day the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone.