The Wrongologist

What’s wrong today:

Yesterday the Wrongologist said that the US and NATO had really created a No Drive Zone, not a No Fly Zone in Libya since we were providing tactical air support to the rebel forces. Despite that, I said that we should back President Obama’s play unless and until we saw mission creep that would put us in another Middle Eastern quagmire.  It took 24 hours for us to start sliding down the slippery slope: The NYT tells us today     (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html)  that our government is considering arming the ragtag bunch of 20-somethings that we call the rebels. The administration is seriously considering this because (1) we never simply had a humanitarian objective, we wanted Gaddifi gone,  (2) air support isn’t enough to get him out of Libya and (3) the French are pressuring Obama to agree to arm the rebels.

So here’s what’s wrong: nobody in our government knows any of the following: 

• Who we are arming?
• Will arming them be conclusive in an effort to oust Gaddifi?
• What will all the guns be used for once the revolution ends?

In fact, in an unintentionally hilarious comment, Gene A. Cretz, the American ambassador to Libya, is quoted by the NYT as saying that he was impressed by the democratic instincts of the opposition leaders and that he did not believe that they were dominated by extremists. But he said that there was no way to know if they were “100 percent kosher, so to speak”. (Emphasis by the Wrongologist) He might as well question their freshness.

And the French are pressuring us?  Last week, I heard the Obama doctrine described as: “What would the French do…?” I laughed. But it is no longer a laughing matter, it is the correct description of the Obama Doctrine.

And it is so wrong.

What’s Wrong Today:

The Obama Doctrine was unveiled on TV last night.  It was a workman-like job of outlining a rationale for spending more of our debt capacity on a third simultaneous adventure in the Middle East. The Wrongologist understands the President’s rationale and agrees with our actions to date, even though our previous efforts to save Muslim lives (Bosnia, Iraq,  Afghanistan) have not given the US an improved standing in the Arab world .

 

Turning over combat operations to NATO is a distinction without a difference:  Most of the military hardware is ours and the command and control apparatus is ours too. So what do we mean when we say we are now stepping back to a limited role? I suspect we are still in the driver’s seat, making most tactical decisions on a real-time basis. And I will bet you that all the big decisions will not be made by some combo sandwich of France, Turkey and the UK.

 

So here is what’s wrong: We are not enforcing a No Fly Zone, we are enforcing a No Drive Zone:  NATO planes have not simply kept the Libyan air force grounded and its anti-aircraft capabilities suppressed (what President Obama said we signed up for).  NATO has strafed Gaddafi’s troops and knocked out  tanks and other vehicles moving on the road to Benghazi. So the No Fly Zone instantly morphed into a No Drive Zone. It isn’t hard for a No Drive Zone to extend to close air support  for rebel irregulars. It isn’t far from that to air dropping weapons and ammunition to the valiant patriots or to parachuting in a few military advisors.

 

It is far from inconceivable that if air support doesn’t force Gaddafi out (after all, this guy has killed Americans), we will ratchet up our commitment to the anti-Gaddafi forces. That might bring about more deaths in a civil war backed by our coalition than could die if Gaddafi puts down the rebellion with extreme prejudice.

 

We have seen all of this in the past, and it isn’t hard to envision that it could happen again.

 

Americans also know about protecting the quarterback:  Our guy went about the decision to engage in Libya in a risk-adverse manner:  He lined up support in the Arab-speaking world, he got most of Europe to sign on, (Germany, please call us back) and got Russia and China not to veto UN Resolution 1973. He said the right things about how this one decision does not justify the US entering other nations under a cloak of concern about massacres. So Liberals, don’t be stupid and try to take down Obama just because he promised us he would not get involved in unnecessary wars. You may think this one is unnecessary. But that is a judgment call, and your President disagrees with you.

 

Let’s say for today, that we are going to back Obama’s play unless mission creep pollutes what was said last night.