By supporting the United Nations’ resolution for a no-fly zone in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi’s security forces, the U.S. is in the unenviable position of waging war on another unstable Muslim nation without using the military muscle to actually ensure the demise of the Gadhafi regime, some military officials and analysts say. The White House and top Pentagon officials defended the decision Monday saying the no-fly zone was necessary to save countless lives from Gadhafi’s air attacks.
But retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told The Washington Examiner that imposing the no-fly zone was a “major mistake, leading to unprecedented outcomes that may end in a stalemate with Gadhafi still in power.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen admitted Sunday that a stalemate allowing Gadhafi to remain in power was a possible outcome. On Monday President Obama urged Gadhafi to step down.
Vallely said the messages from the Pentagon and White House are “confusing and convoluted.”
The risk, said Vallely and some active-duty officers who didn’t want to be quoted by name, is that U.S. air power could be drawn into any number of similar missions against Muslim regimes, stretching the American military thin and diverting needed resources from Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and other Arab nations have also cracked down on civilian protests. “Are we supposed to initiate no-fly zones there too?” asked Vallely.
“We have to ask ourselves if Gadhafi is a direct threat to the American people or the United States, and I don’t believe he is,” Vallely said. “We’ve sold billions of dollars in military power to Saudi Arabia and Egypt; they have the capability and the power to do it themselves if they choose. The Arab nations should resolve their own problems and put the monkey that is on our back, on theirs.”
Others have said that U.N. Resolution 1973 doesn’t go far enough.
James Phillips, senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation and North Africa expert, said “the administration has subcontracted out its war-making decisions to the U.N. Security Council.”
“It is in an awkward position in Libya,” he added. “It is enforcing a U.N. resolution to protect civilians, which will be an open-ended mission as long as Gadhafi remains in power, but it is constrained by the U.N. consensus to rule out regime change,” he said. “It is therefore relegated to treating the symptoms of Gadhafi’s repression, without taking decisive action to remove the problem.”
Retired Navy Adm. J.D. Gordon, who was the Pentagon spokesman for the Western Hemisphere from 2005 to 2009, wrote in a column on Monday that the resolution “stops short of calling for Col. [Gadhafi’s]” ouster.
Gordon’s Fox News column said the situation is similar to how the U.S. reacted to Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait in 1991. Gordon noted that not removing Hussein in 1991 eventually led to waging war against him in 2003.
A U.S. military official said whatever the Obama administration is saying publicly, the only successful military outcome would be “the removal of Gadhafi. Despite everything, that is exactly what the mission plan is.”
But senior Pentagon officials are being careful not to suggest that as an objective of the missions now under way.
Mullen stressed Sunday that the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn, which launched more than 125 Tomahawk missiles at strategic air base locations in Libya over the weekend, was not to remove the Libyan leader from power but to protect civilians.
“It’s not about seeing [Gadhafi] go,” Mullen said. “It’s about supporting the United Nations resolution which talked about eliminating his ability to kill his own people.”
Whatever the U.S. intentions may be, the air strikes have given hope and renewed resolve to the Libyans opposed to Gadhafi.
A Libyan opposition member told The Examiner that the U.N. resolution “almost came too late.”
“Without the no-fly zone the opposition and innocent people would have been slaughtered,” the Gadhafi foe said.
James Carafano, senior defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation, said the administration should be very careful before choosing sides among groups opposing Gadhafi.
“As a matter of strategy al Qaeda tries to flood foreign fighters into a region of ongoing conflict, using it both as a recruiting and training tool,” he said.
“We know [al Qaeda has] at least enough infrastructure to set up a pipeline — heck, they funneled fighters from North Africa to Iraq, why not into North Africa?” Carafano said.
Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner’s national security correspondent. She can be reached at [email protected].
