Libyan War Could Signal NATO’s Collapse

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer

Christopher Hill, a former United States special envoy for Kosovo and now dean of the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, has remarked that the NATO operation against Moammar Gadhafi is in danger of failing.

It suffers, he has written, from a “strategy/policy mismatch. The policy is to remove Colonel Gadhafi from power. The strategy – the mandate for the means – is to protect civilians. The latter will not ensure the success of the former.”

His warning echoes that of outgoing U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who recently pulled no punches when he told the leaders of the alliance that it faces a “dim” and “dismal” future, if so many of its member states refuse to get involved in the current war against the Libyan dictator.

Gates said that less than half of NATO’s members have participated in the effort, and only one-third have contributed militarily. (Canada is among the one-third involved.) Shortcomings in capability and will, he remarked, “have the potential to jeopardize the alliance’s ability to conduct an integrated, effective and sustained air-sea campaign.”

Not only is Gadhafi continuing to defy the alliance, but had himself photographed playing chess with the visiting Russian head of the World Chess Federation in Tripoli recently.

The U.S. Congress is also tiring of the Libyan campaign and has not hesitated to let President Obama know it.

The House of Representatives last week rejected a bill to authorize continued American military operations in Libya.

This was mostly symbolism, as a measure that would have limited financing to support those efforts failed. It was, however, a warning to the administration.

America is drowning in debt, caused partly by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is little appetite for this conflict.

The total cost of American operations in Libya is expected to top $1 billion by the end of the summer.

Barack Obama doesn’t want to throw his weight around the way George W. Bush did.

But the Libyan mess actually illustrates the shortcomings of multilateralism and dependence on organizations such as NATO, the Arab League and the UN Security Council itself, which has forced the U.S. and its allies to conduct a campaign with not one, but almost both hands, tied behind their backs.

If the United States, and other willing countries, had attacked Libya’s armed forces, and killed or captured Gadhafi, right at the start (even if this had involved elite ground forces), this war would have been over within weeks, if not days.

Maybe it would have been “illegal” by the standards of international law today, but think of how many lives, buildings, and other infrastructure –  not to mention money – would have been saved.