This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both.
Countries bomb what they want--or don't, if they choose; act without telling other coalition members what they are doing; and have different notions of what we are fighting for.
And yes, Bush got more allied help to follow us on the ground into Iraq and Afghanistan than Obama can get to act with us over and near Libya.
Thank goodness we restored our reputation abroad the last two years.
Well, maybe we'll get lucky anyway.
UPDATE: We've met the lowest common denominator of the coalition effort over Libya by stopping the assault on Benghazi. What now?
Having largely succeeded in stopping a rout of Libya’s rebels, the inchoate coalition attacking Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces remains divided over the ultimate goal — and exit strategy — of what officials acknowledged Thursday would be a military campaign that could last for weeks.
The United States has all but called for Colonel Qaddafi’s overthrow from within — with American commanders on Thursday openly calling on the Libyan military to stop following orders — even as administration officials insist that is not the explicit objective of the bombing, and that their immediate goal is more narrowly defined.
France has gone further, recognizing the Libyan rebels as the country’s legitimate representatives, but other allies, even those opposed to Colonel Qaddafi’s erratic and authoritarian rule, have balked. That has complicated the planning and execution of the military campaign and left its objective ill defined for now.
Our own administration says different things about the goal of the war, let alone splits between coalition members. And the new command structure makes it worse, with NATO commanding only the lowest common denominator mission of enforcing the no-fly zone. Which, as I've mentioned, is the least important part of the mission. Killing people and breaking things on the ground (that "kinetic" activity we hear about) will be left up to individual coalition members.
What will we do? Put out a list of targets and collateral damage risks each morning and have allies bid on what missions they want to carry out? And allow any to sit the day out if nothing suits them? It will be easy for members of the coalition to quietly implement their "exit strategies" by going to the morning briefings but simply refusing to pick up any missions--while holding out at some point that they might picky up a mission that is just right for them. They'll be voting "present" on the war without taking a stand. How could we object to that strategy?
This is no way to run a war--not if you want to win it, anyway. And it doesn't matter if nobody taking part wants to call it a war, or if the term is obsolete. It is what it is.
But we could get lucky, anyway. Who knows? I can't rule that out.
