Gadhafi’s fall: A victory for NATO, but not for Obama
Since the wave of revolutions began in January, Obama has reacted to every development belatedly; at no point has the U.S. been the initiator, or even a major influence over events.
By Anshel Pfeffer Tags: Libya Arab Spring NATO Barack Obama Syria Bashar AssadLibya might yet descend into tribal anarchy and civil war as Iraq and Afghanistan did. But on Sunday, with the rebels’ entry into Tripoli, the European leaders who led NATO’s campaign to aid them − French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron − could allow themselves a few moments of satisfaction.
Five months after it began helping the rebels, NATO has tipped the scales in their favor. The many skeptics said the West could never unseat Muammar Gadhafi’s regime by air strikes alone, that the strikes hit too many civilians, that this was a waste of military resources.
 |
President Barack Obama. |
| Photo by: AP |
Two months ago, it seemed as if Europe had lost patience. The rebels were treading water, and calls for stopping the air strikes grew. But in reality, NATO was quietly revamping its mission. It tightened operational coordination with the rebels and gave them arms, equipment, military advisers and trainers. It also posted spotters who spoke both Arabic and English among the rebels to keep air strikes from hitting civilians and rebel forces. The spotters were trained to identify enemy targets and relay real-time information to NATO aircraft, guiding the bombs to the most important targets.
Over the last month, NATO planes flew almost 20,000 sorties over Libya and conducted 7,500 air strikes that broke the regime’s resistance. Speed was essential: Next month, NATO was slated to discuss a third extension of the mission, while the UN General Assembly, with its anti-Western majority, was planning to assail NATO for exceeding its UN mandate of creating a no-fly zone and protecting civilians.
The mandate definitely didn’t include close aerial support of the rebel forces. But NATO went ahead anyway, and has now silenced the critics.
The big question is who will stay in Libya to help the transitional government impose order. NATO is sticking to its decision not to send in ground forces, and neither the Arab League nor the European Union seems to be interested in the job. But these are tomorrow’s problems. For today, it’s permissible to celebrate the downfall of the fourth Arab tyrant this year, following those in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.
Officially, this is NATO’s achievement. But in practice, two key members of the alliance will have trouble claiming credit for it. Angela Merkel’s Germany initially opposed the military intervention in Libya, reversing course only toward the end. And NATO’s superpower, the United States, doesn’t come out looking like a victor despite having contributed vital military and logistic assistance to the effort.
While the leaders of Britain, France and Italy led the hawks, U.S. President Barack Obama was dragged into battle almost against his will. Nor did the Republicans, who lambasted him for going to war without Congress’ approval, escape unscathed.
Since the wave of revolutions began in January, Obama has reacted to every development belatedly. Only last week did he finally demand that Syrian President Bashar Assad go. At no point has the U.S. been the initiator, or even a major influence over events.
Now, his administration will have to coordinate a policy on Syria − once again belatedly. In Syria’s case, the main players are Assad’s patron in Tehran, which will do whatever it can to preserve his regime, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is now backing the opposition.
Syrian opposition leaders met in Istanbul yesterday to plan for the day after Assad’s fall. They know who’s in charge − and he isn’t in Washington.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
The entire Rebellion was began by CIA, funded and armed by the CIA with other European powers assisting in order to take Libya's oil. What's new?
No NATO boots on the ground only "trainers and military advisers." NATO has done the following, Proved that the West cannot be trusted. Power comes from the muzzle of a gun. Europe will spend the next 100 years paying for this.
why should obama spend more money and good will that america doesn't have. this piece paints a negative spin, looks like it was written by a 5 year old instigator.
Obama is only a community leader and does not know how to lead a nation or world leaders. He is a one time president and has been a embarrassment to America. So nato rightly deserves all the credit for what they done, obama was on vacation and had nothing to do with it.
Bush was the real embarrassment to America not Obama
NATO is the winner, that includes the US. Egypt might be also. The losers are: Erdogan, Russia Medvev-(Ras)Putin, Germany Mrkel, Iran, and a bunch of Afgrican toadies. Throw in Norway and Sweden, Pakistan and China
Moron!
NATO's regime change in Libya will end up biting everyone in the behind. Mark my words.
B O UNDERSTANDS: WHAT WE DO TO TACKLE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES AND NOT SYMPTOMS like the "blond jews" (on vacation) in Aruba or ANY OTHER BIGGER place on Earth "choosing" without really wanting (such choice) between the one who's even more black than the other. That's racism also, cos they say they "choose" the Dominican who was a lot lesser black than the Curacaolean, but actually they would've wanted NOT to have to choose either one one of the 2 black ones. They "chose" one who is lesser black than the other. And that too is racism even though they tell you a story trying to conceal a choice they made because they're racists and NOT because they are not (racists). As if next to the less blacker one there was one even less black or white they would've gone for the 3rd one instead of either more or less black. And that is racism too, you see?
At the very beginning of Obama's ill-fated and sad presidency, he missed his very first trick and showed he was never going to be a world leader. When it became clear that the Iranian elections were a complete fraud and the government was entirely illegitimate, Obama said precisely nothing. There was his first and most magnificent opportunity to change world events for the better and he muttered a few platitudes written by State Department hacks. What a shame!
... and for a change, it isn't on fire. That's a victory for America, in my book. If this is the result, then the level of action was just abut right.
... but there is no sure victory yet, and if the rebels really are in power, it will be a long way for the Libyans to walk to a properly functioning state. A month after the Iraqi war was declared, there were celebrations over the world... today Iraq is still in the grip of violence and in-fighting and a way off from democracy or something functionally similar.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the US took 65,000 Casualties in Iraq and is still bleeding there, blood and money ($2 Trillion+). Libya cost no American lives and about one day's worth of Iraq expense. And for that the US is getting payback for Berlin and Lockerbie.
The assumption that the US was not an active participant in NATO's extensive involvement and participation in the overthrow of Ghaddafi is dubious. NATO, the rebels and Ghaddafi know the extent of America's involvement. No. 6 sounds more plausible..
Back in the early days of Libya's uprising the EU were pressing Obama to act and join them to protect the fledgling uprising. After two weeks of Obama's indecision they succeeded and barely salvaged Bengazi from being over-run by the encircling Ghaddafi's tanks. But they could not save Misrata: Ghaddafi's tanks managed to enter Misrata and a pitched battle with the rebels ensued for weeks resulting in the death of over 1000 rebels and civilians. Another of Obama's spineless indecision.
Actually Nato prepared Kybia for a Chinese takeover. Mao's inhdritors will explore the Lybian oil before the West has a chance to think about it. You want to bet?
Why should the US be the initiator...the UK and France took the lead and did quite nicely. The only way for the US to mess this up would be to increase rather than decrease her current level of involvement!!!
Obama is an academic not a leader, and he also wants everybody to like him, non of which are leadership qualities. I would say this business in Libya was actually a failure for NATO. They expected it to last a matter of weeks but even though they not just exceeded their mandate but even broke international law when they were intentionally targeting Gaddafi's compound in a hope to kill him ( they admitted they were trying to kill Gaddafi ). Its taken 5 month, cost billions of dollars and now nobody knows what to do because they are all determined not to put any boots on the ground to help rebuild. The reason everybody in NATO has ruled out military action in Syria is because they have seen that operations which should theoretically be quick have a habbit of dragging out and costing billions. As for Obama he has proven that he is not worthy of the position of President of the United States because thats a job that requires showing leadership in global conflicts. The only time he has been quick to encourage the revolutionaries was when it came to telling long standing US ally and regional peacekeeper Mubarak to go, he has been fighting very hard to save Assad ( because he doesn't want to get drawn into another conflict ) but the one arab the west has been able to rely on for 30 years Obama was quick to ditch and he wasn't even killing people the way Assad is. the real poetic justice with Egypt though was although Obama was quick to denounce Mubarak when he sent Clinton to the region to meet the protestors ( few photo oporunities with the regions stars the wanted nothing to do with her because the US had supposed Mubarak so long ). Obama didn't know what to do about Libya until the Saudi's pretty much ordered him to take military action. He is just incapable of making hard decisions and the only times he seems to be sure of himself in the Middle East is either when he is hurting Israel or trying to appease the muslims. I don't know what he is going to do about Syria because I doubt any of the Europeans will want to get dragged into airstrikes on Syria after a Libya war that has cost them all a fortune ( Libya cost the UK alone £1 billion ) and the arabs are not going to want any role in an attack against Syria so it will probably be just the US & Turkey which will mean no trying to sink into the background the way he did in Libya So it will be very much an American war and Syria brings extra complications like Hezbollah possibly starting a war with Israel at a time when the US is dropping bombs in Syria, the US risks getting dragged into an Israeli war. Hezbollah also have terror cells in the US itself which can be activated. Assad has much better air defenses than Gaddafi does and he has around 100 Scuds and one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the region and there is no telling what a desperate dictator will try in his attempt to hold onto power. So Syria will be the real test for Obama see if he has what it takes to handle difficult situations
The US was not only the initiator, but the overwhelming influence in its outcome! It was in almost constant contact with the military, and I'd even venture to say that at some point about midway through demonstrations, the US actually became directly involved in orchestrating Mubarak's removal. The army is who forced it, of course, but the US was working closely with the army!
The bottom line for NATO involvement was the broadcast threat that Gadhafi made to destroy Benghazi, "without mercy." "Never Again" has meaning in the US and the West. Cambodia and Rwanda and Darfur happened mostly with no interference and little warning. Gadhafi's threat was real and imminent. The Arab League and the UN also asked for assistance to prevent the real and present danger that existed. NATO countries didn't do what was needed in the Holocaust, but some learned. US involvement has cost US taxpayers about the same as one day in Iraq so far.
What is wrong is wrong.It was wrong in 1941. It was wrong in 1970, it was wrong in 1980, it was wrong in 1990, it was wrong in 2000, and it is wrong today It is wrong to claim that you are "protecting civilians" whrn you are paying mercenaries to kill people to secure your access to oil. Obama is soiled with the indelible dirt of "free trade" and corporate hegeneny.
How's that working out for you Obama? Syria anyone?
everyone knows that. saying- "having contributed vital military and logistic assistance to the effort." is an understatement. of course he was hesitant about going to war, as well he should be. his opponents have been blaming him for this war, making him out to be completely responsible for it. now, they can flip flop, and say- no victory for Obama, just for Nato. i dont think so.
This comes as no surprise since he has never held an executive job in his life. He has never been a mayor, a governor or a chief dog catcher. He has never been in the military, the cub scouts or the boy scouts. Obama is learning his basic leadership skills as preseident of the USA and he is not doing very well at it.
You know, what can you expect from a community leader? Nothing is his fault, it's George W. Bush's fault. It's your fault also, because he blames everybody else than himself, so you can accept part of the blame also.
this is without question an obama victory to the average american. They see the US did something and the regime fell. Nothing deeper. And really the world knows the US played a lead role so they will somewhat see this as a victory too. Since this man has become president, Bin laden has been killed, mubareks regime has fallen, and Gadhafi is about too... Now did he have much of anything to do with any of it? NO but Presidents of the US good or bad get the credit...
Better to bet on the one that will win, then inject it with steroids so you get credit for the win.
Light sweet crude.
Any questions?
As in Kuwait, if they exported bananas we would never had gotten involved.
"Never Again" means more than just a slogan about Jews. For the US and UK, also remember Lockerbie and the Berlin Nightclubs.
And because almost everyone hated him anyway - even if they pretended otherwise!
If Nato's intervention was about oil, it could as well help Gaddafi. Lybia's oil is flowing to Europe anyway. I think the real reason is refugees. The right wing parties rise cater on Europeans frustration about illegal refugees. A long war and unstable Lybia would mean a lot of migration tio Europe. Another reason is to show military strength without risk in Europe's backyard.
From the perspective of a U.S. citizen, Obama and our military had deep involvement in NATO's operations in support of Libyan rebels. Unlike his hapless predecessor, Obama had to navigate his way through Republican obstructionism and the legacy of our failed Iraq and Afghanistan invasions under the previous Bush regime. Republicans McCain and Graham, who paid personal visits to Qaddafi less than two years ago, are now stating that we (Obama) did not do enough to aid the rebels. Yet, it only took four months to achieve success. How are things in Iraq after eight years? Give credit where its due. NATO's success, but not without strong U.S. leadership and support.
You are so wrong and nothing you have said has an ounce of truth.
What Pfeffer is forgeting is Obama's Cairo speech. While Obama is getting hit from all sides right now, the future will hold him in high esteem for turning the page and closing a chapter on the history of the Middle East. In America, Obama has been taking the blame for lengthening the war in Afghanistan, but he ordered the hunt for Bin Laden - and he got his man. In Libya, Obama had no choice, and he ordered the US-led NATO forces to defend the insurgency. Now, that looks like the right decision. Pfeffer notes that the critics of NATO have been slienced - so should the critics of Obama be silenced. Obama is earning his Nobel Peace Prize by waging war on tyrants and terrorists.
I am not too sure about the future recognizing Obama's role in a New Middle East. Mubarak was America's staunchest ally-and Obama threw him to the dogs.Saudi Arabia ans Bahrein needed stong anti--iranian backing,and all they got was a quiet mumbling.Syrian opposition needed massive American support,and all that they got is repeated sanctions against Asad,who will continue to stay in power. Obama showed the world only that he dislikes and mistreats Israel. So what ? The only winner in his continuously faulty Middle Eastern policy is his propping up of Erdogan,which manoevers cleverly to become the biggest role-player in ME.
Obama did not want US to be involved. Rather he was seeking a unilateral base for intervention. That was NATO - a conglomerate of countries where USA also takes part. A neutral base!
The United States does not have to lead the world in over throwing every despot or dictator. Other freedom loving countries can play their part in that regard. Obama did right in allowing the Europeans to take the lead in this case because they had more at stake in Libya. Most if not all of Libya's oil goes to Europe.
It appear that the localized uprising inside Tripoli has failed we will know in a few days, it will get too hot for the rebels and they will retreat, as various factions split up in an uncoordinated retreat outside the capital. They only win because of NATO air power and going into the capital among the civilian population and Qaddafi loyalists it negates much of the air power and they lose their advantage.
NATO, Qatar & Al-Qaeda have been defeated in Tripoli by popular resistance & Libyan army. Rebels have no support among population. Libyans have shown they put their lives on the line for Gaddafi. He is more popular among his people than any NATO politico sell-out to bankers is. Despite losing, NATO luftwaffe is killing scores of civilians & demolishing the country. UN & intl. community at large remains fails to stop or condemn NATO war crimes in Libya.