Libya also revealed some political gaps in the NATO alliance. While all 28 member nations endorsed the operation, only eight participated.
And for Nick Witney, former head of the European Union's defense agency, that is disturbing.
"Few of the allies were actually prepared to participate in what, at least in opening phases, the saving of Benghazi, was surely one of the simplest geostrategic, moral, political decisions that one would have to take about whether to join an intervention or not," said Witney.
Witney's colleague at the European Council on Foreign Relations, former British defense official Daniel Korski, says that poses a very fundamental question about the future of the NATO alliance.
"What is NATO? Is it an alliance where we all fight together against common threats? Or is it an alliance where smaller mini-coalitions within the alliance are able to do whatever they want while people stand back," Korski asked.
But while Admiral Stavridis is eager for the alliance to close its capability gaps, he is not worried about its political unity.
"I don't think there was an existential threat posed by Libya, but in fact, the alliance stepped up, undertook this. I think that's a good example of the alliance being willing to take on missions that are beyond existential," Stavridis noted. "I think NATO has a role to play in the world, kind of a role for good, and I think we'll continue to do that."
NATO has always been an alliance where each member decided how to respond to threats. There was never an automatic response required of each member. Even a Soviet invasion only obligated alliance members to respond as they saw fit. Now, the threat was dire enough that we expected everyone to do their part (with the notable exception of France whose response was ambiguous given their withdrawal from the alliance military structure, if not the alliance itself). Indeed, I've recently speculated on ways to leverage the ability to build smaller mini-coalitions within the alliance made up of small amounts of troops provided by willing members.
That's what an alliance does as opposed to an empire. It gains voluntary compliance. But as a former EU defense agency head, Witney's conception of defense responsibility of member states as command and control from the center should give any country that didn't participate in the Libya War reason to run from the EU as fast as possible. Europeans have a choice. Do they want to be part of a true alliance with America as an ally who does not control but which has the forces to command and give the alliance full combat spectrum capabilities? Or do Europeans want to be drafted and forced to fight by an empire that does not have the assets to actually wage and win a war you must take part in?
