Libya May Be NATO’s Last Mission

From: Fiscal Times

Even before outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates caused a ruckus earlier this month when he declared that NATO faced “a dim if not dismal future,” the long-term viability of the alliance was in jeopardy.

While America’s financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and defense has remained steady, European spending in both areas has decreased, forcing the United States to shoulder the largest portion of NATO’s $2.8 billion annual budget in the alliance’s 62-year history. And the war in Afghanistan and fledging NATO mission in Libya shows how member states individually undermine the alliance’s global strategy and cause political problems at home.

Gates’ speech led to a lot of diplomatic handwringing in European capitals, where politicians have become comfortable with the U.S. as NATO’s primary sponsor and military point man. In recent years, according to Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush, Europeans have become complacent about the mission of the alliance.

“Russia’s not a threat, and Europeans don’t like expeditionary missions,” said Volker. “They don’t believe they work very well.”

There is no argument that America is NATO’s sugar daddy. In 2009 and 2010, the United States kicked in $408 million and $430 million, respectively, to NATO’s military budget; $462.5 million is earmarked for 2011 spending.

The U.S. contributed $66.1 million and $84.1 million to NATO’s civil budget in 2009 and 2010
respectively. Some $90 million has been appropriated for this year’s budget.

And U.S. contributions to the organization’s security investment program, which pays for NATO installations and facilities, were $330 million and $197 million in 2009 and 2010, respectively, with $259 million earmarked for 2011.

Total U.S. financial contributions make up 25 percent of NATO’s budget. Germany, the U.K. and France are the largest NATO contributors behind the U.S. Yet the differences between the contribution amounts are substantial.

Germany contributes 18 percent, while France and the United Kingdom contribute 9 percent. From 2000 to 2003 between 3.1 and 3.2 percent of America’s GDP to NATO, while Western Europe contributed between 2 and 1.9 percent of its GDP.

At the same time, Germany and the U.K. are in the midst of deep defense cuts that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned could cause long-term damage to strategic alliances, including NATO.

“The United States has decided it needs to behave in a way in which it undertakes any problem it sees fit,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. “The Germans haven’t made that decision, and neither have most of the other NATO countries.”

Past U.S. Defense secretaries have defended the size of the U.S. contribution as necessary to secure national security interests. Gates’ speech was a clear break from this policy.

Afghanistan and Libya

Whiners at War

From: The Caro Institute

The Europeans' military campaign has stalemated. The enemy threatens to triumph. American assistance is desperately needed.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron probably imagine that they are reliving the bleakest days of World War I or World War II. Can today's Napoleon and Churchill battle back to victory?

Actually, the spectacle of Sarkozy and Cameron at war should be a show on Comedy Central.

The two leaders decided to atone for their nations' past support for authoritarian governments by attacking Libya's Moammar Gaddafi. They rallied U.S., European, and Arab support by draping their plan for regime change with a humanitarian mantle.

Then everything fell apart. Gaddafi, the toast of European leaders only a few months before, didn't "just leave," in President Barack Obama's inimitable phrase. The rebels turned out to be more mob than army; allied air support prevented their defeat but could not give them victory.

Worse, France and Britain didn't have enough aircraft to maintain bombing operations. The two countries now are begging their allies, including the U.S., for more support. Western policy can best be characterized as a disaster.

The West's war in Libya well illustrates Lord Acton's dictum that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Libya threatened no one outside of its borders. There was no unique humanitarian crisis. Despite allied rhetoric, nowhere had Gaddafi committed mass murder, despite his well-earned reputation for ruthlessness (and his past crimes). The opposition was largely unknown, with radical elements. The rebels' military capabilities were limited.

Nevertheless, Paris and London rediscovered their martial roots and began campaigning for a "no-fly" zone in Libya, supposedly to protect civilian populations from attack. In fact, intervention would be on the side of the opposition with the objective of ousting Gaddafi. A European diplomat admitted to the New York Times:

"The no-fly zone was a diplomatic thing, to get the Arabs on board." The Arab League backed away when it realized the extent of the West's ambitions.

The U.S. and Europe attacked the Gaddafi government simply because they could attack the Gaddafi government. Gaddafi had given up his nascent nuclear program and the capability to build longer-range missiles, leaving himself vulnerable to outside coercion. (The lesson has not gone unlearned in Tehran and Pyongyang.) The allies cheerfully assumed victory would be a mere matter of flying.

Oops.

One problem was the intra-Libyan balance. Gaddafi proved to be more resilient than expected. The opposition proved to be less organized than hoped. Allied support only evened the odds, lengthening the conflict. Like past civil wars, this conflict proved to be bad for people and other living things.

Moreover, the rebels weren't angels. The opposition initiated military action and, where victorious, was none-too-gentle with those accused of backing the other side. Alliance officials even threatened to bomb the rebels to protect civilians, raising the prospect of NATO planes saving fuel by simultaneously attacking forces on both sides.

A Mission Wrapped in Confusion

From: Eugene Robinson, Washington Post

WASHINGTON --- Is it just me? Am I the only one who's utterly confused about the rationale, goals, tactics and strategy of the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya?

Thought not.

I call it a U.S.-led operation because, people, let's be real. Without U.S. diplomatic leadership, there would have been no U.N. Security Council resolution. Without U.S. military leadership, there would have been no coordinated shock-and-awe attack to put dictator Moammar Gaddafi's rampaging forces back on their heels. On Thursday, after days of bickering, we heard a grand announcement that NATO will take command of the operation. Don't believe it. The United States will be functionally in charge, and thus on the hook, until this ends.

So what the hell are we doing? I realize that President Obama and his advisers have answered this question many times, but I feel it's necessary to keep asking until the answers begin to make sense.

The official mission, under the U.N. mandate, is to protect Libyan civilians. In other words, this is essentially a humanitarian intervention. I get that. After the horrors we've seen in Rwanda and Congo, in Bosnia and Darfur, I understand that a powerful moral and intellectual case can be made for using military force -- and risking American lives -- when it is clear that a slaughter is imminent and can be prevented.

Gaddafi's armored columns were advancing on Benghazi and had other rebel strongholds such as Misurata under siege. As Obama said in Brazil, "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and ... innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government."

Clearly, it seems to me, there will be occasions when humanitarian military intervention is our duty. This may be one of them. But the goal must be to prevent the bloodbath, not just reschedule it. Even after his forces have been pummeled by U.S., French and British airstrikes, Gaddafi has his ragtag opponents outmanned and outgunned. Unless we explicitly take the side of the rebels -- providing air support for their advances, for example -- it is hard to imagine how they will ever be able to take much ground.

In fact, it seems obvious that as long as Gaddafi remains in power, Libyan civilians are threatened -- not just in Benghazi and other rebel-held territory, but in Tripoli and other parts of the country where the government still holds sway. There are neighborhoods of the capital where residents showed open opposition to Gaddafi at the beginning of the uprising. Aren't these civilians in mortal danger? Don't they need to be protected too?

The only way to end the threat is to depose Gaddafi -- which is what the United States wants to do. "It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go," Obama said this week. So is that what we're really doing in Libya, ousting a brutal dictator?

Absolutely not. The military mission is specifically limited to the humanitarian goal of protecting civilians. According to the White House, we're not taking the rebels' side -- and we're not using military means to unseat Gaddafi. Well, maybe someone will launch the occasional cruise missile at his compound, but it won't be an attempt at regime change.

Maybe Gaddafi will make it easy for us and decamp to one of the few countries that might be willing to take him. But while he is battered, he's far from defeated. What if he stays and fights, as he has repeatedly vowed to do. Then what?

To fulfill our mandate of protecting civilians, we'll have to enforce the no-fly zone indefinitely. We'll also have to provide tons of aid so that the rebels don't starve. But if we're not going to also give them weapons, it's unrealistic to expect shotgun-toting shopkeepers and cabdrivers to vanquish what is left of Gaddafi's professional army.

So is this the probable outcome, a divided Libya with Gaddafi holding the capital -- and the oil-producing infrastructure -- while the rebels effectively become wards of the United Nations? Or is it more likely that Libya devolves into "a giant Somalia," as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fears?

Now that we're involved in Libya, it may be that the only way to get uninvolved is to depose Gaddafi -- which our military forces are specifically not allowed to do. Hence my confusion.