By Peter Sterne

Obama’s Much-Mocked “Lead From Behind” Approach to Libya Worked

August 25, 2011 10:00 pm Category: Politics 4 Comments A+ / A-

Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya without launching a full-scale attack perplexed Republicans, who first accused him of being too willing to involve the U.S. in an unnecessary war and then accused him of being too willing to let other countries take the lead in supporting the Libyan rebels. Obama dismissed the criticism, confident that his plan to “lead from behind” by quietly contributing American air support to a NATO coalition could succeed. The Libyan rebels’ recent success shows that his strategy worked, and the Republicans’ baseless criticism missed the point.

The Republicans viewed the United States’ participation in a coalition led by NATO troops as disrespectful to American exceptionalism — the idea that America is the greatest and most powerful nation in the world, and as such has a duty to make the world more like it. Republicans quickly stereotyped him as being at best naive and at worst anti-American, for allowing other countries — especially European countries — to lead the NATO operation supporting Libyan rebels.

“In the past,” Romney explained to a conservative radio host, “America has been feared sometimes, has been respected, but today, that America is seen as being weak.” The sign of America’s weakness? “We’re following the French into Libya.” Romney goes on to say that while he French involvement, “but I think we look to America to be the leader of the world.”

Romney’s fellow Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann expressed a similar view. Like Romney, she seemed almost offended that the United States worked with other countries instead of just telling them what to do. “We are the head,” she argued in a New Hampshire presidential debate, “we are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership to France.”

The fact that France was leading the coalition while the United States was a mere member embarrassed conservatives. They do not want true international cooperation, but a “coalition of the willing” in which the U.S. does whatever it wants and orders countries follow. Romney, for one, could not understand how Obama could both want Gadhafi gone and be willing to defer to international institutions. The president, he said, “calls for the removal of Moammar Gadhafi but then conditions our action on the directions we get from the Arab League and United Nations.” He saw no reason to take direction from international institutions unless they would rubber stamp everything the U.S. did.

The chief concern of Republicans was that the United States, by refusing to directly intervene in Libya or take control of the NATO coalition, would inevitably face defeat. Of course, that’s not what happened. Even though the U.S. stuck to its limited support role, Libyan rebels successfully drove Gadhafi from power. But that has not stopped Republican critics from attacking the president. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum recently released a statement arguing that “ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a good thing, but this indecisive President had little to do with this triumph.”

Now that Republicans’ fears that Obama’s approach to Libya will result have defeat have been disproven, they’ve begun arguing that the war could have been over much faster if Obama had intervened more aggressively in Libya. But this misses a key advantage of Obama’s “lead from behind” strategy: legitimacy, Because the intervention was supported by the Arab League and the U.N., and the U.S. did not insist on leading the rebels, the rebels’ cause seems genuine. Had the U.S. insisted on leading the rebels, Gadhafi and his allies could easily have characterized them as American pawns who did not care about Libya. As Anne Applebaum explains:

The rebels who just marched into Tripoli and waved at Al-Jazeera’s cameras looked like a Libyan force, not a Western one — because they were. The images of them stomping on Gaddafi’s photograph looked a lot more authentic, and will play better in Libya and across the Arab world, than did the images of Marines pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein in 2003, an American flag draped over his head.

Republicans might believe that the Arab dictators can only be deposed through excessive American military force, but Obama has demonstrated in Libya that there is a better way. The United States can support freedom-minded rebels without turning their struggle into an American war. Republicans who think “leading from behind” is weak don’t appreciate its real power.

Obama’s Much-Mocked “Lead From Behind” Approach to Libya Worked Reviewed by on . Obama's decision to intervene in Libya without launching a full-scale attack perplexed Republicans, who first accused him of being too willing to involve the U. Obama's decision to intervene in Libya without launching a full-scale attack perplexed Republicans, who first accused him of being too willing to involve the U. Rating: 0

More by Peter Sterne

VIDEO: Here's Every Mention of 'Obamacare' In Bachmann's Concession Speech

It’s hard to take Michele Bachmann seriously when she bases her entire presidential campaign on repealing President Obama’s health care plan, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When she dropped out of the race on Tuesday, she claimed that her zeal for repeal wasn’t a cliché.

Read more...

Does Ben Franklin Hate Obamacare?

Former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann seems to think so. On Wednesday, she held a press conference announcing that she would “stand aside” and end her campaign after a disappointing 6th place finish in Iowa, her home state. During the speech, she told her audience that she was inspired to run after seeing a painting in

Read more...

Christmas Comes Early: House Republicans Agree To Payroll Tax Cut Extension

After a week of refusing to accept the extension of the payroll tax cut that their own party helped negotiate, Republicans in the House of Representatives have finally agreed to pass the bill, according to the New York Times. Under a deal reached between House and Senate leaders, the House will now approve as early

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • cbcfour

    Obama won the Presidency, Republicans shouted and pouted; Obama is right on Libya and they do the same insane thing; If he had taken the lead they would have been hollering for impeachment, the GOPT can only shout and pout that is all they are about.

  • B in Raleigh

    So when the Libya efforts seemed to be going wrong, Obama decided to tuck his tail and let someone with experience lead. Actually one of the very few things he has done right.

    Now people are trying to say Obama’s strategy was a winner. I would say the commander of NATO had the winning strategy.

    But I really never understood why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was doing anything in the Mediterranean when they were not under attack, nor were even being threatened by Libya.

    Oh wait Libya has OIL, now I know why Obama wanted to control Libya.

  • bixxo1

    Just as Clinton correctly handled the Bosnian war without loss of US lives, Obama correctly handled the war in Libya without loss of US lives. Compare with WBush’s ill conceived and ill implemented war on Iraq with loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, including some 40,000 US troops killed or wounded. Truly sad what impetuous politicians can do. Obama thinks things through and developed a winning strategy, which makes him a true leader.

  • JOCK

    Yes, Libya has oil. Maybe when it gets back on line the gas prices will come down a little. B probably doesn’t care since he lives in the city. Get away from the oil, lets look a Khadafi. He has always been a terrorist in his own way. When his compound was bombed in the 1980′s it settled him down for quite a while but he could never be trusted. The world is a lot better off with him ans Osama Bin Laden both gone, thanks to Obama and his leadership.

scroll to top