When General Petraeus asked the famous question, "tell me how this ends?" early in the Iraq war, he was signaling unease about launching conflicts with no clear idea of how the world should look after the fighting stopped; the military calls this an "end state". When he had a chance to do something about it, Petraeus as a caveat for assuming command in Iraq, insisted that the civilian side of the government craft a clear end state and give him adequate forces to pursue it. By the 2008 election, both candidates were promising never again to get us involved in an open ended conflict. Fast forward to 2011, where we have embarked on a military campaign with no clear strategic objective other than to "do something"; having done something that is clearly not enough, the administration seems at a loss. At this point, we have a strategic leadership vacuum, and the French will probably fill it.
There are four reasons why the French will step in. The first is that President Sarkozy is a student of history. France got involved in two disastrous stalemates in the last century on the western front in World War I and in Indochina mid century. These twin debacles coupled with the fiasco of the French collapse in 1940 sucked the vitality out of French martial traditions. France cannot afford a long war of incremental escalation such as the American involvement in Vietnam, and his country's earlier Indochina experience.
A second reason is that France clearly fears and cannot tolerate, another wave of Muslim immigration into a country already on the brink of seeing the Gallic race becoming a minority in their own homeland. Italy is even more vulnerable in France in this respect as she is Libya's former colonial ruler and a likely destination of choice for refugees. That is why I believe that the Italians may assist in a ground intervention.
Third, Sarkozy clearly wants French world, or at least regional, leadership restored. He wants to succeed where De Gaulle failed, and the Libyan situation presents a golden opportunity to restore the martial traditions of the French glory days of the Sun King and Napoleon.
Finally, of the European powers, only France retains a credible power projection capability beyond continental Europe. Although her constitution greatly restricts the use of the regular French Army beyond the defense of metropolitan France, she has maintained a volunteer expeditionary army in the Foreign Legion and her Marines (expeditionary infantry) which would be more than capable of dispatching Gaddafi's battered loyalist forces.
None of this is to say that the French may not be walking into a situation similar to that we faced in 2004-6 in Iraq when Iraqi factions fought over the remains of their country and the more radical factions turned on their would-be Coalition Force liberators. Libya will likely be a mess for years to come. However, I am suggesting that the U.S. will not be calling the shots if the French intervene decisively, and we should think about if that is what we really want.
In fairness to President Obama, this is what he promised he would do and it is where the first President Bush also wanted us to go. The United States is just another rider in the posse at this point. If the posse threatens to become a lynch mob, we no longer have the decisive vote; nor do we have a veto if the rest of the posse decides to let the guy in the black hat go free. If the American people really want that, they are about to get. I have no choice to defer to the will of the majority if that is really what the majority wants; but I don't have to like it.
Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps officer. He is an Adjunct Professor at the George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs.
Comments
Jim Hess
Im not an American yet I want the US to have the most powerful militarily as it can since we cannot rely on a leadership vacuum providing an opportunity for hand-wringing Europeans to step in. Germany abstained from the UN vote on Libya.
You are right that it is costly to have a highly competent, omnipresent military. Yet the free world depends on the US. Do we really think Russia, China, France or Germany are going to step in to ensure the balance is maintained?
The UN and NATO would be nuted without the backbone and of the US.
If the ROE of those European nations in Afghanistan is anything to go by then I would not want to rely on them to fill any power vaccum left by the US.
While I respect that Australia is no where the economy or military size of the G8 nations, we would be in a lonely place if not for the strength of our alliance with the US.
No doubt there are perhaps fresh ways of engaging with global partners and dialogue to bring people to the table. While I suspect most of us on this forum respond to frank, honest statements of one's position - the rest of the world doesnt respond well to that kind of diplomacy - I suspect Reagan was the last US President who could decively deliver such a message to the rest of the world - yet he had Margaret Thatcher to back him up.
I respect your wish and the underlying sentiment but history has taught us not to rely on those who defend freedom through acquiesence.
Cheers
Jason
Jim,
I think this commentary was right for this discussion and my question may be off the subject, however I feel compelled to ask anyway. You stated "We all went into Iraq for mainly false reasons with disastrous consequences." Lets ignore the reasons for the war and focus on the follow on portion. First I caveat by saying I am not trying to pick at you or your statement, I am just curious. What in you opinion are the disasterous consequences of the Iraq war? It may prompt me to begina seperate thread.
Troufion
I most assuredly want the US to make room for others to step up to leadership positions. And the only way to get other countries of the West to assume this expensive burden is to create precisely a leadership vacuum, to draw them out of comfortable complacency.
Anderson discounts the costs of playing the world policeman, both in direct economic costs and other consequences - such as making the US the target of Al Qaeda; on a lesser scale making us the object of resentment, eroding our security by mis-balancing hard and soft power (see the letter by "Y" from somewhere inside the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
More importantly is that overspending on the military is eroding our competitive position and our standard of living. We need to cut back to a level that establishes sustainable power.
Another point, as satisfying as it may be to the national, and in particular the military ego, to be the biggest player in the game, I see little evidence that we are the only ones with good ideas and the smarts to guide us. We all went into Iraq for mainly false reasons with disastrous consequences, while France was counseling us not to make that mistake.
The post-WWII era in which the US was the predominant economic and international power is ending, whether anyone likes it or not. The smart thing is to anticipate and ride the change as a surfer rides a wave. (Take that, posse metaphor!) Otherwise we'll be left behind, bobbing out to sea, or tumbled into the surf, struggling to breathe.
Gallic pride, leadership and race...? LOL. Too funny. It's the m-o-n-e-y from oil. Just like France took the bribes from the Saddam's oil for food program, they're after Libyan oil. The Italians and Brits are after the oil money too. Nothing more. Nothing less. All the other "humanitarian" or "French leadership" stuff is just smokescreen merde.
As for the U.S., please let's avoid a tribal civil war where both sides will piss on us within 24 hours of winning. Please lets avoid a decade long rebuild of Libya and hundreds of billions of tax dollars we can't afford. Please let's avoid a decade of whining Arabs and Muslims in the press about the U.S. crusaders. Please let's avoid a decade trying to turn Arab tribal cultures into some sort of pseudo-democracy on paper. In short, please let's avoid another multiple decade quagmire we don't need.
<a href="http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-D90F8750-00C20E66/natolive/who_is_who.ht… Who</a> in NATO. Admiral Mullen is Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff not NATO.
A couple of points:
While Obama is trying to be just one of the posse, the Top Commander of NATO is Admiral Mullen, an American.
If you look at each country in the ME, and Obama's reaction to each uprising or existing govt (Iran, *cough*), adding in Iraq and Afghanistan (where he has followed the Bush poicy), you will notice a pattern. The pattern relates to whether a country is ruled by Shia or Sunni, and Obama's actions or non-actions regarding each country.
Well, if I can agree on several points stating that France did lead the coalition to get a UN resolution and is actually deeply involved in the fightings, I am a little stund by some interpretations/understanding of France foreign policy.
It's true that on Africa continent and specially sub saharian, France is coming back in its former role of continental super power.
Secondly, Sarkozy was a lazy law student and political science student rather an history one. But this doesn't really count in why he is going to war. The terrorist threat and need to rebuild relations with the arab world that France failed in Tunisia is much more important.
And if I'm wrong, then Sarkozy is even more stupid I ever thought.
Finally, the immigration issue is not well understaood. In France, the problem is not a so called gaelic Home land (It's actually a far extrem right wing pro nazi rethoric in France to use such term). The issue is electoral and to lower down the extrem right that is gaining votes as the conservative right has not been able to ensure better times for its electorat. Please, do not mix up everything and get abused by silly artificial created "clash of civilisation".
M-A
Carl: I was under the impression the 25 million was for a bit more than old uniforms such as rolling stock, radios, binoculars...wait a minute, hasn't evolution over ions of time developed zarkaa al-yamama in the traditional Bedouin Arab stock? That is to say, far-sightedness. . .whats with binoculars anyway?
Tyrtaios:
You said
"Very clever of the Obama national security team because anything non-lethal delivered becomes equally valuable toward exchanging for something else, like more weapons."
I don't think US surplus whatever, to include I think old uniforms, has much trade value when one is looking for modern weapons.
Jim:
Pop American cultural prejudices are not always valid.
For those who have time and patience the latest IISS Strategic Comment answers many of the issues over the role of France and Europe: http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-…
Ah a wish for the good old days...
The Weinberger doctrine:
The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
Libya is inconsequential to the US, unless you try to argue the 'islamic dominoe theory'. The French can handle it, if they want our help they can rent our armed UAS. Besides, If settling the conflict in favor of democratic revolution were really that important to the regional states the Eygptians would be involved. They could end it in a week.
The damage from Libya would be more to Obama's ego and reelection campaign. I'm more referring to the long term notion that the US should step out of the limelight on most fronts and allow others to take the lead on a more permanent basis. On that, I refer to much more than Libya. Libya is a fools errand, but we took the bait. Obama will not pull away. He may be tepid and not escalate like France, GB, or Italy, but he will not pull away. That creates too much political fodder for his opposition.
To strategy of hope that Gadhafi will go willingly or by political pressure is a pipe dream. Only force will remove him. Shouldn't have been US force, but as of today, the UAV's are heading in officially, so when will escalation stop?
To sit one out would not have been a bad thing, but the US shouldn't retire that heavyweight belt just yet. It's a better world with the US as champ.
Must 800-pound gorillas be involved in EVERY bar fight? Even when they're a little tired, hungry and out of money? Even when their smaller friends are quite capable of getting the job done against inferior adversaries?
It appears the U.S. has developed a class of folks for whom no war is too small and no adversary too inconsequential for the application of U.S. military power.
Wouldn't it be nice if all those folks who seem to think it's our nation's proper destiny to be at war 24/7 actually participated in those wars and perhaps even paid for them? Personally, I'm more than willing to sit back and watch European kids leading the way while European treasuries are the ones being depleted for a change.
The relevant history here is Algeria, which was a terrible quagmire, and is why France hasn't been militarily adventurous for decades. This sounds like France's Granada/Falklands, where the manly Sarkozy gets his manhood back.
And it is great policy for the US to let other sympathetic powers take the lead. It is high time that we start drawing down our garrisons and reducing our imperialist footprint. It is a boon to the international system to put force behind "international opinion" in a distributed and multipolar way.
No doubt when the Frogs of war let slip the first bombs, it was with the clear understanding the U.S. would sans tarder, finish the job off with our tactical tomahawks and B-2s. As per his ilk, when the dust cleared, President Sarkozy (Sarko) got out front and claimed credit for being in the lead.
Sarco is lagging behind in the upcoming election polls, and wants to be seen as doing something about the French classe moyenne unhappiness with the failure of his government to address the problem of Muslim immigration, to which Kaddafi has been heard to say thousands of Libyans will invade Mediterranean Europe should his regime fall...which may have merit, as Italy has seen an influx recently.
My bet is Sarco is only posturing to once again goad the U.S. into further stepping deeper toward mission creep, which may have worked, in that Obama has just asked Congress for 25 million toward non-lethal aid for anti-Kaddafi forces.
Very clever of the Obama national security team because anything non-lethal delivered becomes equally valuable toward exchanging for something else, like more weapons.
And what, pray tell doyle, would the serious injuries be to US interests if the US were to withdraw our limited support in Libya? Especially if we accept the notion that the European powers are intent on escalation, then even if we were to accept that Libyan regime change is in the US interest (which is arguable), US intervention is unnecessary to reach that goal. It is not too late for withdrawal, so rather than quibbling about which Western power should be in charge of this mess, why not discuss getting out of it altogether?
The US should have stayed out of the car, yes, but we got in and that car is careening towards the cliff. We can't jump out now without some severe injuries.
We can wonder all we want about what we *should* have done, but the fact remains, we are in the car. Do we take the wheel and exert the effort to avoid going over or do we just hang on for the ride and hope for the, I can't say best, how abut least worst?
This essay is enjoyable speculation. While point 2 is clearly and factually false, and point 3 is highly arguable and seems to rely more upon projection upon the part of the author than any documented postures of Sarkozy, the speculation is interesting. However, the upshot of the last paragraph is that, if the West is going to drive off a cliff, the US should insist on being at the wheel. I suggest a third option that the author seems to wholly discount...why don't we just get out of the car?
Or, to abandon the metaphor, why should we insist on participating in, much less leading, a military adventure that has such dubious benefits to American interests?
Directed at gian p gentile. If I may, I believe the author is suggesting that our posture in Libya is one of just being one of the players instead of THE player. To meet the metaphor, we are just one of the posse instead of the sheriff.
It is what Obama is targeting under the guise of multi-lateralism, but there needs to be an understanding of the consequences of leveling the US out as just another member of the pack instead of asserting ourselves as the defacto leader.
Personally, I think it is a dangerous position that would serve to accelerate our descent from the mantle of world leadership. The real question is whether the majority of the US opinion wants to live in a world where the US acts in its best interests or one where we need to constantly defer our interests to those that meet world consensus?
The world looks to the US for guidance in many instances. That leadership is costly and has consequences. The shortsighted stepping back from having the strong shoulder upon which the world can lean may ultimately prove more costly when the rest of the world no longer really needs the support or consult of the US.
Where's Prof. Anderson getting his figures for French Muslim population from, the NATIONAL REVIEW? France "on the brink" of a Muslim majority? Perhaps this is the same math that leads Americans to think most of our budget is foreign aid.
http://www.pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional…
Not sure about France "finishing the job," but heres an interesting account/perspective of France starting the job with supposed superior political-military synchronization (http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17583).
Phil Ridderhof
Excerpts of the "Second Line of Defense post from a retired French Air Force General.
"On March 19th, the action played out in less than 7 hours:
ââ¬Â¢ At 11 a.m.: while the Carrier Battle Group warms up in Toulon, four Rafale fighters in air defense configuration take off from Saint Dizier airbase. They are supported by air tankers from Istres and one AWACS from Avord airbase.
ââ¬Â¢ At 12:30 p.m.: at the Elysée palace, the French President opens an international meeting about Libya, two days after Resolution 1973 was signed in New York.
ââ¬Â¢ At 1:00 p.m. : the four Rafale fighters are on site and patrol above Benghazi to enforce the no-fly-zone. They are filmed and broadcasted on TV channels all over the world.
ââ¬Â¢ At 2:00 p.m.: two Rafale and two Mirage 2000D fighters in close air support configuration take off respectively from Mont de Marsan and Nancy airbases.
ââ¬Â¢ At 5:00 p.m.: French aircrafts destroy several of Gaddafis troops armored vehicles on the outskirts of Benghazi, disrupting the encirclement of the Cyrenaicas capital. Half an hour later, after leaving the international meeting, the French President can communicate on his decision and the first results which stem from it.
This string of events on a short loop basis stressed the coherence between all involved assets: ranging from the investments made to equip Lyon Mont-Verduns - where all European air forces are trained for air operations - to the determined choice of multirole capabilities illustrated by the « Rafale equation » and its armaments which aim at replacing all existing French air platforms. The operational result is a product of thirty years of investments driven towards a major and crucial imperative: Frances strategic autonomy and operational sovereignty.
Whatever the future operational and political scenarios, autonomy stands from funding. French forces currently lack air tankers and armed UASs. In addition, French land-based, sea-based and air-based capabilities closely depend on the quality of training (in this case, the pilots training is at stake, but the same reasoning applies to infantrymen or sailors). Finally, these events highlight the necessary subordination of support to operations."
I do not understand the point of the last paragraph. I dont fully understand the use of the metaphor of a posse, and I am not sure what Gary is getting at with regard to what the American people "want."
I think the point of the essay is an implicit call for the United States to take the lead in Libya with the injection of ground forces to do regime removal and the follow on obligatory state building, but I am not sure.
gian