Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict, and pandemic disease.
The starting point for that collective action will be our engagement with other countries. The cornerstone of this engagement is the relationship between the United States and our close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East—ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and the broader security and prosperity of the world. We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence—including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia—so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero sum game. We are expanding our outreach to emerging nations, particularly those that can be models of regional success and stability, from the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia. And we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions.
National Security Strategy of the United States, May 2010 (PDF)
I stood against the policy to intervene with military power in Libya. I have discussed my reasons, and others have articulated my reasons better than I have. I feel trapped when writing about Libya because my gut tells me I am watching a political train wreck in slow motion.
Of all the arguments that support the necessity for US involvement, I simply do not buy the strategic arguments made with one exception -
we must support our allies. This argument was best articulated by Secretary Clinton following the Paris Summit Saturday. I remain unconvinced in my position on Libya, but that press conference by her was excellent.
"Supporting our allies" is the best argument the Obama administration has made. The President himself articulated that argument so poorly and so infrequently prior to taking military action that it never made an impact on me. I have to remind myself that the ugliness of the process by which policy was developed does not mean that the policy is bad. I remain skeptical of the Presidents policy, and I admit that skepticism makes it difficult to believe what the President is saying, but there is nothing to be done about it now except trust him until evidence suggests otherwise.
If we believe US policy for Libya is what the President says, then we can articulate the policy objectives of the United States to be:
- Set Conditions for Coalition Operations
- Support Coalition Operations With Unique US Capabilities
- Support Coalition Nation Objectives
I am so used to the United States leading military operations globally that I actually find it difficult to believe there is a realistic alternative -
let others lead. Some might say the US should never let others lead, but I would remind them that the existing National Defense Strategy of the United States is to concede that position of leadership when necessary.
I will note there is a lot of evidence that the United States military strategy being executed is in support of the policy articulated above. There are significant differences in Libya that suggests military operations reflect almost exactly what President Obama is saying.
Set Conditions for Coalition OperationsThe unique military capabilities that have been demonstrated in Libya by the United States are taken for granted. Both Fox News and MSNBC reported on Sunday that 122 of the 124 Tomahawk missiles fired against Libya so far were from US ships and submarines. In other words, the United States took out the entire air defense of Libya in less than 36 hours with the USS Stout (DDG 55), USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Scranton (SSN 76), USS Providence (SSN 719), and USS Florida (SSGN 728). According to
various sources, the USAF also flew a total of 15 U.S. Air Force aircraft made up of F-15s, F-16s, and three B-2 Spirit Bombers. Also in the air were 4 U.S. Marine Corps AV-8Bs and an unspecific number of support aircraft including at least
1 EC-130J ( <--hit that link and listen) and a handful of
EA-18G Growlers.
That makes the US contribution an Expeditionary Strike Group (ARG + escorts and submarines) and no more than 40 USAF aircraft, only 15 of which are actually USAF strike aircraft so far. Libya is the first war participated in by America outside the Western hemisphere since WWII where the US has not deployed an aircraft carrier. The reason that is significant is because a single US nuclear aircraft carrier has more strike fighter aircraft than what the USAF has committed to Libyan operations to date. Despite the overwhelming show of force the last 24 hours, the US military footprint supporting operations against Libya is actually very small by US military standards.
Kicking down the door by destroying the entire air defense and command and control capacity of Libya in 36 hours is a capability unique to the United States. It would take
at least 100 more aircraft or perhaps every Tomahawk capable ship from all European nations to do what the US Navy and USAF did this weekend - and we made it look so easy on TV with 5 naval vessels and less than 40 USAF aircraft that the whole world, including American citizens, takes that unique military capability of the United States for granted.
I'm not suggesting Libya was a bastion of defense, but I challenge anyone to develop a way Europe could have knocked out the Libyan air defense and C2 networks without using significantly more assets or nuclear weapons. What the US military did to Libya in a 36 hour period was a lot more impressive than folks realize, because no one else in the world could do it.
It seems to me this initial phase of military operations meets the criteria for the first policy objective of the United States stated above.
Support Coalition Operations With Unique US CapabilitiesI am hesitant to make predictions, but I do believe that if we draw upon the policy as laid out by President Obama, US military operations are about to scale down considerably relative to the last few days. There will still be support aircraft like EA-18s, EC-130J,
tankers, etc... operating but it won't surprise me if USAF strike fighter sorties become much less frequent as the fixed targets are eliminated.
Based on my read of US policy, the following assets will conduct the majority of operations over and around Libya from now on:
- Italy* - NMM Giuseppe Garibaldi (CVS 551), NMM Francesco Mimbelli (D 561), NMM Andrea Doria (D 553), NMM Euro (F 575), NMM Chimera (F 556), NMM Fenice (F 557), NMM San Marco (L 9893), NMM San Giorgio (L 9892), NMM Libra (P402), Elettra (A 5340), Etna (A-5326)
- France* - FS Forbin (D 620), FS Jean Bart (D 615), Charles de Gaulle (R 91), FS Dupleix (D 641), FS Aconit (F 713), FS La Meuse (A 607)
- United Kingdom* - HMS Triumph (S93), HMS Westminster (F237), HMS Cumberland (F85)
- Belgium - 6 F-16s
- Canada - 6 CF-18s for Operation MOBILE. Also HMCS Charlottetown (FFH 339)
- Denmark - 6 F-16s
- Greece - 4 F-16s, 1 R-99, HS Themistoklis (F465) and HS Limnos (F451)
- Norway - 6 F-16s, 1 P-3
- Qatar - 4 Mirage 2000-5EDA Fighters.
- Spain - 4 F-18s, 1 CN-235, 1 tanker aircraft, SPS Méndez Núñez (F104), SPS Tramontana (S74)
- United Arab Emirates - mix of 24 Mirage 2000-9s and F-16s
* I am unable to keep track of the number of aircraft involved by these nations, but they represent numbers of aircraft on par or greater than the United States.
Noteworthy that is at least 60 strike aircraft from the Libya coalition without adding in the US, France, UK, or Italy to conduct operations over Libya. Additionally, I suspect the USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) may be used in some circumstances helping civilians, as close air support against ground targets is what the aircraft on that ship can do.
Support Coalition Nation ObjectivesIt is noteworthy that the only aircraft carriers supporting operations for Libya are being fielded by Italy and France. There is evidence both nations will continue to contribute strike fighters as part of the coalition. Based on naval presence and numbers of contributing strike aircraft my assumption is that the United States will turn military operations over to either France or the UK, and the US policy objective will be to support the French and UK policy objective - which I read to be remove Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi from power.
This policy, while shared by many Americans, may drive Americans nuts. The political left is split, with many not happy because President Obama has allowed the US to get involved in another war against an Arab nation. The right is also split, with many not happy the US is spending money for a third war when we already have two wars on our hands. The real political question going forward is whether the supporters of the President's Libya policy on both sides of the political isle will accept US involvement in a war where the outcome of objectives will be determined by someone else - specifically European and Middle Eastern nations both politically and militarily.
This approach that concedes political and military leadership in war to others is uncharted waters for existing generations of Americans, but it explains why Admiral Mullen told "Meet the Press" that one outcome is Gaddafi remaining in power. If US policy was deciding the outcome in Libya instead of others, Admiral Mullen would never have said that.
What is at stake in this political struggle regarding military use? As I see it, the fundamental promise of cooperative partnership that everything else in President Obama's National Security Strategy of the United States is built upon is at stake with Libya. The only way cooperative partnership will work as a strategic theory going forward in the 21st century is if the United States concedes ownership of political objectives to others when they take the lead to regional problems. Welcome to Libya, the first real world regional war where this theory is tested. The politics are likely to be ugly without strong Presidential leadership - leadership that has not existed to date.
If the strategic argument that Barack Obama has built US policy for Libya on is indeed to
support our allies, now that we are involved - in my opinion what is at stake is the viability of existing European international partnerships as a legitimate foundation for national security strategy for the United States in the emerging 21st century global heterogeneous political and economic environment. We either trust in our European allies, or we don't. The President has made the policy of the United States to trust European leaders in France and the UK. Since they recently placed their trust in us for Iraq and Afghanistan, we know one possible ending.
This popped up today on Facebook.
