The Realist Prism: Libya as Threat du Jour

The Realist Prism: Libya as Threat du Jour

The CNN effect is alive and well in 2011, even if its 2.0 incarnation might now be labeled the Al-Jazeera effect. The fact that U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron are now talking about a "full spectrum of possible responses" to support the opposition to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and NATO is considering endorsing a "no-fly zone" over the embattled North African state -- even as the war in Afghanistan rages and Iraq is far from settled -- testifies to the ongoing power of the global media to drive even a superpower's foreign policy agenda. But although intervening on behalf of regime change in Libya has grabbed the attention of the commentariat, no such calls are heard for America to defend democracy just a bit further to the south and west, in the Ivory Coast, where a democratically elected president, Alassane Ouattara, has been unable to compel his predecessor, Laurent Gbagbo, to transfer power. Gbagbo's militias are using no less violent methods to hold on to power, but because the dramatic images have yet to saturate our television screens, pundits have not seen fit to gravely warn how Obama's "failure" to act jeopardizes U.S. global leadership.
 
There is a case to be made for U.S. intervention in Libya. My problem, however, is with the knee-jerk reaction of the foreign policy establishment to proclaim every new televised crisis as the "test" of whether America remains a global leader or whether the president, by not immediately dispatching U.S. military forces, is abdicating his responsibilities to defend U.S. interests and the U.S.-led international order. Indeed, stepping back to observe the big picture over the past six months, what is striking is the utter and complete incoherence of expert commentary on what America's interests are and what role the U.S. should be playing in the world.

Last summer, Iran was the looming threat. The Bushehr reactor was coming on line, and the likelihood of the Islamic Republic crossing the nuclear finish line -- and Obama's "failure" to prevent this from occurring -- led to calls for the U.S. to "do more in Iran!" Then, in short order, we had a war scare with North Korea, with pundits darkly warning that the restraint showed by both Seoul and Washington in responding to Pyongyang's provocations was nothing short of appeasement. The attack by drug cartels on a U.S. couple jet-skiing on a lake on the U.S.-Mexico border then suddenly refocused attention on an "undefended" southern border and the spillover effect of Mexico's narco-insurgency -- with the commentariat questioning why the administration wasn't doing more in America's backyard. Then the federal debt became the "threat du jour": America was bankrupting itself with its overseas commitments. Concerns about the federal government drowning in a sea of red ink were apparently so acute that even Tea Party conservatives were supporting a massive reduction in the size and scope of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan: Just two short months ago, two-thirds of self-described Tea Party supporters agreed with the proposition that U.S. interests would be best served by downsizing the American presence or leaving Afghanistan altogether. This distaste for overseas involvement, however, seemed to evaporate with the murder of four Americans on board the Quest in the waters off Somalia, resulting in calls for robust action against Somali pirates, including carrying the fight back to the shore. Of course, the Quest incident was soon relegated to footnote status as Libya coverage came to dominate the airwaves.

The problem, of course, is that other festering problems don't disappear simply because news coverage of them takes a backseat to the latest breaking story. Iran's progress toward a nuclear capacity proceeds apace, and the defeat of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as chairman of the Assembly of Experts -- the clerical body that among other functions has the power to select Iran's supreme leader -- is a sign that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei are strengthening their hold on the political establishment. Iraq is by no means settled; we face major challenges in Afghanistan; our counterterrorism strategy in Yemen is jeopardized by unrest in that country; and North Korea hasn't disappeared. Determining just how much time, energy and resources we should commit to an intervention in Libya -- resources that would then no longer be available for other overseas contingencies or for use in meeting domestic needs -- should be driven by a dispassionate assessment of U.S. interests. Instead, it is being driven by the "CNN effect."

A related concern is how quickly assessments change based on the latest television coverage. A month ago, though no less dictatorial or repressive, Gadhafi was the poster child for how to bring rogues in from the cold -- an eccentric despot who nonetheless gave up his WMD program and renounced support for terrorism in return for an end to his international isolation. Moreover, Libya's efforts against al-Qaida in the Maghreb -- and Qaddafi's assistance in helping to stem the flow of migrants from Africa into Europe -- were appreciated by the Euro-Atlantic community, while the prospect of easing the global energy crisis by renewed investment and development of Libya's energy resources turned the "Mad Dog" of the 1980s into a responsible statesmen. A steady stream of Western businessmen, politicians and academics traveled to Libya in order to advise and counsel the regime, and many assumed that Libya might follow the Taiwanese model, with the transfer of power from an autocratic father to a reform-minded son who would gradually lead his nation down the democratic path. Now, the "Mad Dog" is back, with warnings being sounded that should he manage to retain control, Libya will become a haven for terrorists and will restart its WMD program.
 
And what of the anti-Gadhafi opposition? Sen. Jim Webb sounded a cautionary note this past week, saying, "It is not a good idea to give weapons and military support to people who you do not know. When it comes to the opposition in Libya, we do not know them." Right now, the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi is characterized as pro-democratic and pro-Western, with some asserting that if it comes to power in Libya, it would turn the country into a firm ally of the West. But is that assessment based on hard intelligence or media speculation? During the uprising that deposed former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the protesters in Tahrir Square were hailed as the forefront of a new democratic movement. Will the same talking heads who last month castigated the administration for being too slow to "support freedom" in Egypt be the first ones to denounce Obama for "losing" that country if elections bring to power an illiberal democracy that ends up being much less pro-American?
 
Foreign policy is not a video game where a player can rely on an endless supply of resources and where there are no consequences for failure. Any military intervention should have clear-cut objectives and be undertaken with no illusions about the costs and risks. George Will raised a set of questions to this end in his column this week. We should formulate clear answers to them before making any commitment -- in Libya or elsewhere.