I don’t understand this new military doctrine: Leading with your Behind.
It’s extraordinarily – sorry, can’t resist – half assed.
Obama’s light touch in Libya prolonged the war and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths that likely would not have occurred had more decisive action been taken. The unnecessarily long duration of the fighting likely gave Islamists time, before order could be established, to organize within Libya on their own and with help from abroad by our enemies. And our failure to lend a strong hand will reduce our influence in the crucial aftermath, as Islamists attempt to seize the revolution.
And yet the White House is celebrating. Here is portion of the song Obama offered during his victory dance Thursday in the Rose Garden.
Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come to an end . . . Working in Libya with friends and allies, we’ve demonstrated what collective action can achieve in the 21st century.
Vice President Biden and senior administration officials are suggesting this is a new bloodless paradigm for fighting that focuses mainly on, well, not fighting: hitting targets from the air, encouraging the locals to achieve our objectives, and getting our inept allies to do as much as possible of the dirty work that still needs to be done.
NATO got it right. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward.
Even the Wall Street Journal chimed in with a rapturous piece about the new era of antiseptic warfare.
Sorry, you don’t get something for nothing.
The stated reason for Obama’s intervention into Libya was to protect Libyan civilians, not to overthrow Qaddafi. But it’s arguable that many more civilians died as a result of his actions than would have if the United States and NATO stayed on the sidelines. It is inarguable that total casualties – including those killed fighting on both sides – were far, far greater than if we had done nothing.
Do young men fighting for freedom not count? Ask their mothers.
The main thing we actually achieved here is that we killed Qaddafi.
In early September, the interim Libyan health minister estimated that at least 30,000 Libyans had been killed since the start of fighting in February. Most of these lives presumably ended after U.S. began to intervene in March.
And the 30,000 estimate is probably very low. It doesn’t include thousands others who were missing or who were killed during the past six weeks. Nor does include some 50,000 who were injured and all the homes and property destroyed and lives wrecked.
This is success?
The United States has once again crapped all over another country without seriously assessing the fallout. Obama did the right thing by intervening, but he did it in such an inept way that he completely undermined his own rationale.
The light and inefficient touch of a NATO bombing campaign in place of forceful leadership from the United States allowed this conflict to continue for months more than it had to, at an unconscionable price in deaths, maimed bodies, and ruined property and lives. And we’re more likely to be facing a new cadre of hostile Mullahcrats.
Obama destroyed the village in order to save it. Rings a bell.