“Removing Gadhafi and those around him could easily set in motion a chain of events in which a different strongman, with the backing of a different tribe, took over. Or it could create a situation in which radical Islamists gain the upper hand. Either way, significant areas of the country would be beyond any government control…”
Thank you, Dr. Richard Haass, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, for including the above two paragraphs in your Wall Street Journal oped today on President Obama’s options in Libya.
Some of Haass’ readers will be surprised that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), as capital-e Establishment a body as one might find, would buck the conventional wisdom about how it’s only a matter of time before US soldiers land in Libya.
Haass’ willingness to do so is both important and welcome.
I note that at least one CFR blogger is talking up the electoral risks that loom for President Obama, if his actions on Libya result in the US military becoming bogged down in one more foreign war.
That possibility, as well as the practical limitations on what the US can do in response to events in Libya explored in Dr. Haass’ article, should give the President pause to think his moves through.
Haass’ article will come as a huge disappointment to those foreign policy gurus who think of global politics as a giant chessboard, or some other sort of game on a grand scale. These are precisely the people who must be kept far from opportunities to influence the President’s decision-making.
Let them vent their imperial fantasies by playing computer games, instead of playing with the lives of America’s soldiers, sailors and airmen.
The only serious criticism (that I can see) one can make of Haass’ article is that its silence regarding the need for the President to directly head off the talk in London about no-fly zones over Libya – perhaps to be followed by stronger measures.
President Obama’s message to the UK’s David Cameron and France’s Nicholas Sarkozy can be short and sweet – “Regarding Libya, we want no repeat of the Suez crisis, gentlemen – no matter how much you think a splendid little war might help you out at the polls.”
As Haass’ oped warns, splendid little wars can turn out to have less than splendid results.
