As the U.S. observed the 8-year anniversary of the "Shock and Awe" invasion of Iraq, Americans this weekend had to contend with the reality that — however limited our aims intend to be — the U.S. is now at war in another country, this time in Libya.
Although U.S. officials have been quick to call the United Nations-sanctioned no-fly zone as under French and British leadership, on Sunday there were reports that American forces had taken the lead in the initial campaign to knock out Libya’s air defense systems.
Appearing on all of the major Sunday talk shows on broadcast and cable was Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who attempted to get the message out that this mandate from the U.N. was to protect innocent Libya civilians from the military wrath of their leader, Moammar Qaddafi.
But even though President Obama has said for weeks that the Libyan leader "must go," the U.S. military says that regime change is not part of their mission, though some wish it were. Check out this exchange between Mullen and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you, however, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, does it make sense to leave Qaddafi in power, even if it is just in Tripoli, where he can create an enormous amount of trouble for the world?
MULLEN: Well, I think he clearly has been isolated internationally. He has had the Arab League, his own peers, if you will, or colleagues vote very strongly against him. We have got an arms embargo that is more effective than the one that has been put in place in 1970.
WALLACE: Under those similar conditions, he brought down the plane at Lockerbie. He bombed the nightclub that killed Americans in 1986. I mean, even a cornered, isolated Qaddafi can be — I don't have to tell you, sir, very dangerous. MULLEN: No, I mean, he is a very dangerous guy. He's very unpredictable, and certainly I think all of us will continue to bring a lot of pressure. But to say exactly what the outcome is right now, I just can't do that.
WALLACE: You say in there, a couple of times, you used a caveat in saying this is the mission for now. Are you saying that it is possible that the mission may change and that they become taking out Qaddafi?
MULLEN: Well, I wouldn't speculate on what the missions will be in the future.
On NBC's Meet The Press, host David Gregory went to the central question: Is invading Libya as part of an international force truly in the U.S. best foreign policy interests? "Realpolitik," as they used to call it. That's the reason why the U.S. did not intercede in Rwanda in 1994, and was an argument for not getting involved in the Bosnian conflict in the 1990s. (The U.S. did ultimately get involved, first with NATO in the mid ’90s, and then in Kosovo in 1999).
This article appears in Mar 17-23, 2011.
