• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Mission Impossible to Define

    The Daily Caller reports: “Some Democratic advocates are already touting President Barack Obama’s Libyan intervention as a success, but others, including Democratic foreign-policy gurus, worry that a continued stand-off will damage the president’s polls and wreck efforts to boost the role of transnational organizations, such as the United Nations.”

    It is not surprising, liberals are all over the map, or for that matter conservatives have very different views of what the White House is up to. That’s because the President has finally succeeded in bringing Washington together—all sides are confused over what exactly the mission in Libya is. Most media outlets agree. We are currently seeing headlines like: “NATO Struggles to Define Libya Role“, “Navy chief: We don’t know what happens next in Libya war“, and “No ‘timeline’ for end of Libya operation

    An ill-defined mission can spell disaster for a military operation. A clear declaration of purpose is vital to avoid “mission creep” – an expansion of commitments beyond the original goal of the operation. First and foremost, the President must clearly articulate the mission of U.S. operations in Libya and clarify U.S. interests. Neither stating that the U.S. is helping “protect civilians” nor declaring that American ground troops will not be applied is sufficient. Stating that the U.S. is not pursuing “regime change” is a declaration of what the mission is not, not what it is.

    The President needs a more prudent course for his Libyan adventure.
    Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) raised similar questions in a letter he sent to the President yesterday:

    I respect your authority as Commander-in-Chief and support our troops as they carry out their mission.  But I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.  In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered.  At the same time, by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.

    It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.  Here are some of the questions I believe must be answered:

    • A United Nations Security Council resolution does not substitute for a U.S. political and military strategy.  You have stated that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi must go, consistent with U.S. policy goals.  But the U.N. resolution the U.S. helped develop and signed onto makes clear that regime change is not part of this mission.  In light of this contradiction, is it an acceptable outcome for Qadhafi to remain in power after the military effort concludes in Libya? If not, how will he be removed from power?  Why would the U.S. commit American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests?
    • In announcing that our Armed Forces would lead the preliminary strikes in Libya, you said it was necessary to “enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by our international partners.”  Do we know which partners will be taking the lead?  Are there clear lines of authority and responsibility and a chain of command?  Operationally, does enforcement of a no-fly zone require U.S. forces to attack non-air or command and control operations for land-based battlefield activities, such as armored vehicles, tanks, and combatants?
    • You have said that the support of the international community was critical to your decision to strike Libya. But, like many Americans, it appears many of our coalition partners are themselves unclear on the policy goals of this mission.  If the coalition dissolves or partners continue to disengage, will the American military take on an increased role?  Will we disengage?
    • Since the stated U.S. policy goal is removing Qadhafi from power, do you have an engagement strategy for the opposition forces?  If the strife in Libya becomes a protracted conflict, what are your Administration’s objectives for engaging with opposition forces, and what standards must a new regime meet to be recognized by our government?
    • Your Administration has repeatedly said our engagement in this military action will be a matter of “days, not weeks.”  After four days of U.S. military action, how soon do you expect to hand control to these other nations?  After the transition to coalition forces is completed, how long will American military forces remain engaged in this action?  If Qadhafi remains in power, how long will a no-fly zone will be enforced?
    • We are currently in the process of setting priorities for the coming year in the budget.  Has the Department of Defense estimated the total cost, direct and indirect, associated with this mission?  While you said yesterday that the cost of this mission could be paid for out of already-appropriated funds, do you anticipate requesting any supplemental funds from Congress to pay for ongoing operations in Libya?
    • Because of the conflicting messages from the Administration and our coalition partners, there is a lack of clarity over the objectives of this mission, what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East.  The American people deserve answers to these questions.  And all of these concerns point to a fundamental question: what is your benchmark for success in Libya?

    You can read the full letter here.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Mission Impossible to Define

    1. LibertyAtStake, Alex says:

      "…has finally succeeded in bringing Washington together—all sides are confused…"

      Excellent use of snark. I'm still waiting for the shoe to drop on WHO ARE THE REBELS, ANYWAY? If they turn out to be Jihadis, it's over for President WTF.

      d(^_^)b
      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
      "Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

    2. George Colgrove VA says:

      I find it interesting that as the war mongers in this country are in disarray, there is more ground work by the PEOPLE of these oppressed countries to finally seek freedom on their own. What has changed all of a sudden that is allowing oppressed people to rise against tyrants? The only global change I see is a dramatically weakened US.

      I'd hate to think we spent trillions of our tax dollars to prop up people like Qadhafi, simply because they were the enemy we knew as opposed to the enemy we did not know. Think about the decades our DoD and State Department have sponsored oppression through massive amounts of foreign aid and "lost" billions. Now that they see us as weak, they are rising up against thier tyrants, but also are they rising up against us?

    3. Pingback: Mission Impossible to Define | Western Journalism.com

    4. Bobbie says:

      Look at this. Mr. Obama shaking hands with a man he soon calls a tyrant! Why aren't you using your diplomatic skills Mr. Obama? NOW!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×