Barack Obama and Cruise Missile Diplomacy

Muammar Qaddafi/Gaddafi/Gadhafi/Khadafi/Khadafy

Modern military doctrine teaches that wars cannot be won except by taking territory and territory must be taken through ground occupation. Air power alone cannot win wars, nor can it win territory. The Germans during World War II learned this principle in their attempt to bomb England into submission. The air war over England destroyed people and cities but accomplished no strategic ends except to strengthen the resolve of the English against Germany.

Air power can accomplish certain strategic ends. During in the Gulf War, air power brilliantly destroyed the communications and control centers of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Army. Modern military doctrine recognizes that air superiority is necessary in order to take territory within countries deploying major armies. It also recognizes the value in disrupting or destroying the enemy's infrastructure. Yet air power cannot win a war and is notoriously inaccurate when it comes to attempting assassination. (How many caves were blown up to try to get at Osama bin Laden?)

President Clinton loved cruise missile diplomacy, so much so that the US actually ran out of them during his administration. Trouble in the Balkans? Lob in a few cruise missiles. Bin Laden getting uppity in Afghanistan? Send out the cruise missiles. Reagan tried an air strike in Libya back in 1986, with little effect and leaving Qaddafi in power.

We are then left to wonder what President Barack Obama's strategy is with regard to Libya in authorizing US Tomahawk missile strikes. As Obama may or may not have stated (his public statements getting more and more vague and irrelevant), the strategy in Libya may or may not be to assassinate Qaddafi. It may or may not be a prelude to a ground-based assault. It may or may not be a means to allow the rebels some breathing room. It may or may not be an appeasement to French policies. It may or may not be because Hillary Clinton chewed him out for his inaction.

It is, however, a clear demonstration of Obama's non-existent foreign policy - a reaction to a situation rather than an action. After a month equivocating on Libya while Qaddafi gathered his forces and nearly destroyed the rebels, Obama decided to "do something." His is a "Fire and Forget" strategy, designed to appease European and (believe it or not) US sensibilities. Obama shows for the moment that he's decisive regarding the instability in Libya and supports the "democratic" uprising.

Yet in a week, two weeks, a month, when the ADD news media focuses on its next "crisis" the news about Libya will blow over like a cloud of radioactive material. Obama supporters will applaud the President's actions to help the poor Libyan rebels. Most of the rest of the people of the US will shrug their shoulders and chalk up Obama's actions as another strange fluke from this strange administration. A few will point out just how much Obama's policies look like George W. Bush's, neglecting to point out that Obama doesn't have the guts to commit large numbers of troops and money to Libya to actually oust Qaddafi.

Can the current administration prove any more desperately that it does not have a grasp of the American mind, domestic policy, foreign policy, or even a concept of how to use military power? With the current oblique strategy on Libya, all we can do is shake our heads and reply: "Yes it can!"