Obama Wins In Libya

Sorry for the triumphant title, but I feel as if someone must say it. The apparent downfall of the Qaddafi (sic?) regime in Libya has come in the most unexpected (for me) but the best way possible. I had though that the fighting would eventually lead to some stalemate and an entrenched front dividing the country in two, and some rouge guard or lucky NATO bomb would take His Majesty of Sunglasses out. A successful rebel drive on the capitol, considering the state of the rebel's professionalism for most of this fight, was not what I had foreseen. But a fight to the last man at Qaddafi's headquarters is the best outcome, if only because it cements this as a victory for the rebels, for the Libyan people themselves.

Because if these last few months have meant anything to those outside Libya, it is to provide a real case study as to how to remove a murderous and tyrannical dictator. It is not by invading the country with Western forces (see: Iraq 2003, Afghanistan), nor is it by providing no help to an indigenous uprising and hoping it will turn out well (see: Iraq, 1991). This was humanitarian intervention at its smartest. No Western troops on the ground and a true international alliance that included Arab partners. And, most importantly, it worked. This is not a 'mission accomplished' moment, because we are not on the ground. If Libya devolves into tribal warfare, that will be for the Libyans to solve. Humanitarian intervention is not about solving everyone's problems for them, it is about using the unique military force of Western powers to prevent the wholesale and planned slaughter of civilians, as would have happened in Benghazi if we had not intervened.

Obama earns his due in this because of his reaction to the launch of the rebel movement in the East, and by this point I believe we can drop the 'rebel' prefix. It is very easy to imagine the two other choices that were available to Obama, choices that other Presidents would have gone for. He could have ignored the pleas for military assistance from the fighters, and stood by as Qaddafi's forces ran roughshod over civilians. He could have also committed the United State's military in full. In an alternate universe I could see Clinton doing the first (Mr. or Ms.), and I could readily see McCain doing the second (if he could spare soldiers from Iran, Yemen, and Georgia). Both of those are easy political options. Obama has demonstrated, and his poll numbers reflect, that when faced with a major decision, his first consideration is not what will be the most politically popular among the most critical sections of the electorate. Rather, he prefers a smart move that will play out in the long run, as he is a man with his eyes on the long game.

Much the same can be said of the President's handling of the killing of bin Laden. Another man would have launched a drone strike as soon as there was good intelligence that Osama was there, but that would have obliterated the compound and would leave no proof. So Obama approved the now famous  and flawless raid, risky as all hell, but it made sure that we knew for sure that we had finally got our man.

So now, on Obama's watch, we launched an operation to kill Osama bin Laden and drove Qaddafi from power, all without loosing a single American soldier. It is an impressive record. It was not done in the most flash or publicity-seeking way, but it was done correctly, and the President deserves the accolades.