Counterpoint: The cardboard tiger

Brendan Carroll writes today

While the case for intervention weeks ago was not bulletproof, it was fairly solid. Earlier this month, Anne-Marie Slaughter ’80 did a fine job tying the clear moral case for action to the national interest, arguing in The New York Times, “Now we have a chance to support a real new beginning in the Muslim world — a new beginning of accountable governments that can provide services and opportunities for their citizens in ways that could dramatically decrease support for terrorist groups and violent extremism. It’s hard to imagine something more in our strategic interest.” Further, Libya is a significant supplier of oil to our European allies and the world market — and there’s the fact that should Gaddafi prevail, he may return to his past pattern of sponsoring terrorism.

Perhaps Obama did not find this case compelling. He may have questioned the trustworthiness of the rebels leading the anti-Gaddafi movement. He might have been swayed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ assessment that the outcome in Libya was not essential to U.S. interests.

But in calling on Gaddafi to leave, Obama unnecessarily added a very real U.S. strategic asset to the calculation — our credibility. Had he said nothing or simply condemned Gaddafi’s violence and watched the colonel slaughter the rebels and citizens of Benghazi, he would have been criticized only for his moral ambivalence. But the moment Obama advocated regime change, he created a scenario in which any other result would suggest to our enemies — chiefly Iran — that we are not confident enough to use all force necessary to achieve our stated goals.

Of course, the president might well have meant to intervene if necessary to save the rebels when he spoke out last month. But the case for intervention has become harder to make as the rebels’ position has weakened. At the height of the rebellion, it’s conceivable that a no-fly zone might have provided enough motivation for Gaddafi to concede defeat or enough material support to enable the rebels to advance to Tripoli. Such rosy scenarios seem far less likely now.

Instead we find ourselves bombing Libyan ground assets and instituting a no-fly zone weeks after the best opportunity, having subordinated our strategic planning to the desire for meaningless international consensus. I understand Carroll’s concern that “it would have poisoned the endeavor for America to rush to war alone or with no more than a few West European allies,” but the best indication of a poisoned effort would be the death of the rebellion. Look at the schizophrenic response of the Arabs, who called last week for a no-fly zone before recanting this week and condemning its implementation. Consider the fact that U.N. Resolution 1973 passed just as the Colonel was closing in on the Libyan rebels’ stronghold and boasting that he would show “no mercy or compassion” upon achieving victory. Had talks stalled, would watching Gaddafi make a fool of the Western world as he slaughtered rebels in Benghazi have been preferable to unilateral action? Hardly. Obama should check his internationalist predilections when they undermine our military mission and, consequently, our credibility as a great power.

Now that the air strikes have begun, Obama has dug his heels in, stating on Tuesday, “It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go.” If he’s saying it again, I hope he actually means it and does everything it takes to make it happen. At this point, if we allow Gaddafi to survive, what will be said of our response to Libya in Tehran, the capital that ought to be most on our minds as we plan our long-term military strategy? The mullahs’ first impression of Obama was weakness thanks to his unwillingness to call the country’s 2009 election the sham that it was. If we are not willing to meet our tough rhetoric on Libya, the sincerity of any commitment to use all necessary force to eliminate Iranian nuclear capabilities is further undermined.

I don’t relish the prospect of a months or even years-long commitment to see out a Libyan civil war to its end. But unfortunately, Obama’s loose lips last month gave us a choice between paper tigerism and strong response. Obama of course discovered a middle way — meandering followed by reluctant air strikes. Call us a cardboard tiger for now if you will. But we should recognize that, with one foot in the water, walking away from this conflict will weaken the credibility of our future commitments. With the mullahs in Iran biding their time until they get their nuclear program back on track, that might be the most important consideration of all.