Libya: Mission Creep, Or Creepy Mission?

The lack of clear objectives in Libya also means that there is no clear exit strategy. Great Britain’s Armed Forces Minister, Nick Harvey, conveyed that reality when he was asked how long Britain would be involved in Libya. “How long is a piece of string? We don’t know how long this is going to go on for.”

The best “exit strategy” is always victory. You fight wars to win. But you have to know what winning looks like. And it’s just not clear what that looks like in Libya. First President Obama said Gaddafi “needs to go.” Then the mission was protecting innocent civilians in that country through a “no fly zone.” Now the White House has settled on “installing a democratic system.” When and how you do that without boots on the ground is beyond me.

With President George W. Bush in Iraq you always knew what the objectives were. Agree with the Iraq war or not, you knew where Bush stood. With Obama you see a war strategy “evolving” (to put it politely) and that is a very dangerous thing.

You hear a lot of discussion about the importance of American “credibility” around the world and the need to follow through with military campaigns lest our “credibility” be threatened. I happen believe that this is very true. A successful military operation has huge ramifications around the world. After the United States successfully invaded Grenada in 1983 to rescue medical students, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua called the American ambassador in Managua and explained that if there was ever a problem involving American students in Nicaragua to PLEASE CALL. They feared American military power because we had been successful elsewhere. Successful military operations are enormously valuable because they prevent you from having to do heavy lifting elsewhere.

For military failures, the reverse is true. If you are committed-you must see it through. Failure to finish the job and appearing weak invites aggression. Thugs and tyrants that see America as impotent are more likely to take aggressive actions because they believe they can now get away with it. With the Libyan campaign underway right now, you can bet that Tehran is watching closely what transpires. We have largely destroyed Libyan air defense systems and their air force. But if Gaddafi stays in power, Tehran will get the message that they just need to stick in there and they will ultimately win in their stand-off with the west.

The problem is now that Obama has committed us in Libya and so we need to make sure that there is a positive outcome for America. Having now broadened the mission to include imposing democracy in Libya, how on earth is that going to be accomplished without a major American commitment? As in ground troops, lots of casualties, and lots of aid?

This is what’s known as mission creep–the commitment grows because the purpose of the mission has been expanded. We now have mission creep for what from the beginning was a creepy mission: helping Islamists from Eastern Libya get in power.

President Obama has managed to make every misstep conceivable in the execution of operations in Libya. My suggestion is that he keep quiet and hope that the French and British get some backbone and take care of matters by themselves. Quit while you are behind. Don’t turn a blunder into a massive disaster.