The NATO operation in Libya has been causing questions from the very beginning, but in reviewing the most recent NATO Briefing on the operation and recent comments by SecDef Gates, SecState Clinton, and high level officials of NATO itself, one must ask what is the future of NATO and is its present form within the constraints of its mandate, or is it being transformed into something new. This is not the first time NATO has been used in a manner different than its mandate, but it is far different to use an existing infrastructure on a voluntary basis and to infer a requirement that individual members act in a non-defensive operation.
Before one can answer the question of Libyan Operations being within the mandate of NATO, one must first realize what NATO was created for and how that mission can continue. NATO was created as a defense to the Soviet Empire, following the Cold War. In a nutshell, signatories agree that "an attack on one member is an attack on all members," and hence all members must participate in the military response to the aggressor. The NATO Charter did not specifically say if the Soviet Union attacked, all would respond, nor did it state that if one member decided war was necessary, that all must join.
Qaddaffi is a tyrant and has a record of supporting terrorism, but when it comes to petty dictators in the world, he had in many ways reformed his ways, when he took note of W's resolve to root out tyrants of his ilk. He should be deposed, but what concerns me is the language used in the whole affair. What concerns me is the means being used to justify the operations. Qaddaffi did not attack any member state of NATO, not in this century anyway. Hence there is no NATO mandate to force member states to go to war in Libya. That doesn't mean there can't be a use of NATO infrastructure for the operation, but that it isn't required by the treaty.
Syria is a far more important enemy, far more active in both state-sponsored terrrorism and in killing its own civilians. And a major difference is that Syria is slaughtering civilians, not civilians who have taken up arms against their government, i.e. rebels. Secretary of State Clinton has made clear that this Administration will do nothing more than complain loudly about it, which is more than it did when Iran was doing the same thing, but less than it did when Egypt was not killing its citizens.
And the language used to justify actions in Libya. The UN mandate on the operation authorizes a "no fly zone" to protect civilian populations. It's a pretty strong resolution, for the United Nations, but pretty restrictive in real terms. The UN is not the US Congress, so the President is not authorized to commit war based on its resolutions alone. No member state of NATO was attacked, so he can't use the NATO treaty as an authorization. I've not noticed, if it has occurred, that Congress has authorized funding for Libyan operations, so the money spent comes from the DoD budget used to maintain the force, or to operate against terrorists in Iraq & Afghanistan. At any rate, other operations are being shortchanged so we can supply ammunition, command and control, and Predators to the Libyan operation.
One "anonymous source" opined that Qaddaffi was a legitimate military target, as he is the head of the Libyan military. NATO couched their response to this by saying "they don't target individuals," but instead "are targeting Libyan command and control" elements. That's political double-speak. Just come out and say it: "Damn straight, we'd drop ordinance on Qaddaffi if we had an excuse for the building he was in, or even if he was in a motorcade running out to his desert tent. Qaddaffi is the main problem here and we'd love to see him gone, one way or the other."
NATO tells us that the Libyan Air Forces continue to be grounded. In other words, the UN resolution is achieved. If Libyan planes and helicopters can't fly, they can't attack Libyan civilians. So, how does NATO justify ongoing operations? It is attacking ground forces and civilian pick up trucks that "may be used" against civilians.
So, what is the current and future of NATO? Is its present more of a military arm of the European Union? Or is it an organization that supercedes the governments of member states? Is it a means for Europe to end their own responsibilities to militarily protect their citizens and borders?
NATO has demonstrated success in achieving things beyond the original intent of defending against Soviet expansion in Europe, but well within the constraints of the treaty. It has been very much responsible for the multi-decade peace Europe has seen, at least the part within the borders of its member states. NATO hasn't prevented problems between Greece and Turkey, but it has helped resolve them. NATO has expanded significantly into eastern Europe, and there we often find the most committed members, but an attack by one nation does not invoke a requirement to attack by all. Otherwise, Germany would have been in Iraq.
NATO has been the primary stationing grounds for the new missile defense program, and while they should certainly be included, they should also participate in the costs. So long as we're footing the bill, our primary responsibility is to use that missile defense shield to protect our own citizens from enemy missiles of rogue states or future superpowers, such as the ever technologically advanced China.
The language used to justify actions in Libya is not dissimiliar to the language used by tyrants. Politicians are distorting reality to portend something far beyond the reality. That is not to say that the actions are unsupportable, or that Qaddaffi shouldn't be killed or captured, but that the political doublespeak undermines the integrity of the treaty, the people involved, and the validity of the actions themselves. It opens the door for conspiracy theorists, imperial propagandists, and others to spout idiocies.
Let's just say it straight: Qaddaffi is a tyrant, one of the minor tyrants in the world, with few friends, and we decided to take him out, because international opposition would be weak at best, and Libyans themselves are the ones risking their lives. Let's quit suggesting that NATO member states are required to support that action, but have the national sovereignity to decide to do so. And let's conform to the US Constitution and get authorization from Congress, and the budget from Congress to do so.
And let's stop wasting lives in the endeavor. Commit to the action, complete the action, and we can put a swift end to it, because quick overwhelming force still costs fewer lives than does a protracted civil war. Let's not pretend that attacking pick up trucks is justified in a resolution for a "no-fly zone," but admit, Our Goal is to remove Qaddaffi from power and we're providing the air assets to the Libyan rebels to achieve that goal. We did that in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Taliban were routed in weeks, half the time of this air campaign. We did that in Iraq in 2003 and Saddam was out of power in weeks, half the time of the Libyan campaign.
I don't think I've ever seen a worthwhile goal so wholly corrupted with the wrong means and excuses for it. And I can't say I've ever seen an administration so adept at picking the wrong fights with allies and so silent on movements of the people against enemy regimes. But then again, he was elected with knowledge of his statements that he would violate Pakistan sovereignity and open the door for unpreconditioned diplomacy with Iran. He did send an Ambassador to Syria only months after Israel took out their nuclear facilities and while they still allowed their Nation to be used as a transit point for terrorists against a US Ally as well as Our Own Troops in Iraq.
Stumble It!
