Another Victory for a New Approach to War by Mark Landler and David Leonhardt, New York Times news analysis.
The death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is the latest victory for a new American approach to war: few if any troops on the ground, the heavy use of air power, including drones, and, at least in the case of Libya, a reliance on allies…
SWJ editor’s note: A little too early for real analysis here and Libya presented a “perfect storm” of variables not often seen elsewhere. That said, this conflict deserves a close look and lessons drawn with an understanding that no two conflicts are quite the same.
Comments
Ken,
I too have concerns that based on our conflict with AQ and its affiliates (and others we mislabeled as affiliates) that it has shaped our expectations that war and warfare will be a relatively low risk affair based on our asymmetric technology advantage. For most Americans it has become a form of entertainment on the news with its cheerleaders and critics.
The risks to us based on this perception is one we'll too easily venture into military adventures assuming the risk is low, and two the military (and the American people) may no longer be prepared psychologically or system wise to include training for a higher intensity conflict.
On the other hand, this still seems like a form of warfare to me.
Bill, you and I agree on many things but differ on the advisability of US involvement in Africa (among other places...). We also differ on the issue of the Al Awlaki strike being warfare. I agree that it was a CT effort. Whether it was a law enforcement or a military effort is IMO immaterial. I have no problem with it on any basis.
However, conflating such actions with warfare will give too many foreign policy, congressional budgeting, intelligence and media persons (as evidenced by the base article on which we are commenting) and sadly, even some military people, a false view and dangerously sanitized view of what constitutes warfare.
Warfare involves people on both -- all -- sides being placed in a position of personal danger. We will forget that at great peril to ourselves...
I think the strike against Awlaki was clearly warfare, as President Bush said after 9/11 this is a new form of warfare. The strike against Awlaki was part of our conflict against AQ who declared war on us. It wasn't law enforcement and it wasn't a peace operation, I think CT and warfare pretty much sum it up.
I'm not so sure where Obama's form of warfare differs that much from Bush, other than Obama has demonstrated he is willing to assume more risk by authorizing these strikes, and he has shifted the effort from the distraction in Iraq to the main effort against AQ again. To his credit he didn't deploy large numbers of troops to other locations, but he did support the surge in Afghanistan, but the authors ignore the fact that the American people lost their appetite for large scale military adventures, so it wasn't a politically feasible option for the President anyway. Furthermore, surgical strikes were the preferred method for killing UBL and Awlaki and supporting the Libyan rebellion, while this method would not have worked for over throwing Saddam or ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan. Neither were doable with a drone strike or a SEAL platoon raid.
I don't think asking others to take the lead is unique to the Obama way of war. Of course this will be called into question largely because it is election season, but the U.S. can't afford to lead all the time, so it only made sense to ask others to step up and lead in the collective security efforts. NATO had real self interests in the form of secure energy supplies, so it was easier to compell them to take the lead for Libya. A more capable NATO in my opinion is clearly in our national interests, and I think the Republicans risk looking uninformed if they keep criticizing this approach. Libya wasn't critical to our national interests.
Leading from behind isn't leading, but I think it is an exaggeration to claim we didn't play a key leadership role militarily initially and diplomatically throughout the effort. Avoidind taking sides on whether we should or shouldn't have supported the rebels, I at least agree with the approach because we're not left holding the bag at the end of the day. If we had U.S. troops on the ground there is little doubt we would get sucked into a large and expensive nation building effort where the Libyan people over time would turn on us and blame us for their problems. We have no idea how the Arab Spring will unfold over time, but it is still possible, and perhaps probable in some cases, it will turn out to be harmful to our national interests in the long run, but at least we're not in the middle of it trying to sort it out for them.
Excellent political summation by two business reporters. Regrettably, it is also terribly superficial, even flawed, militarily. Libya was not a victory for anyone outside Libya nor was it a new approach to war. It was a marginal example of the benefits bestowed by lessened US meddling, little more.
The Al Awlaki strike had nothing to do with war or warfare. The statement that Yemen is "too dangerous for American troops..." is rather fatuous as we have shuffled small bodies of troops in and out of there for years. Not to mention that "too dangerous" is a politically correct risk avoidance phrase that seemingly misunderstands why bodies of troops exist. Warfare and its near relatives are generally considered to be at least borderline dangerous and most of the troops are aware of that when they join...