That’s the take-no-prisoners title of the lead editorial in Sunday’s Washington Post. It could have been written by many of the national-security wonks I’ve spoken to in the past several weeks, both inside and outside of government:
Let’s see if we can sum this up: Mr. Obama is insisting that NATO’s air operation, already four weeks old, cannot end until Mr. Gaddafi is forced from office — but he refuses to use American forces to break the military stalemate. If his real aim were to plunge NATO into a political crisis, or to exhaust the air forces and military budgets of Britain and France — which are doing most of the bombing — this would be a brilliant strategy. As it is, it is impossible to understand.
The Libyan operation shows that NATO can undertake no significant military action without the U.S. playing a – no, make that the – lead role. This should come as a surprise to no one: for years, European nations have starved their militaries, and now we see the withered fruit of that under-investment. Depending on where you sit, this is either great news for the U.S. (Let’s stop being the world’s policeman!) or a terrible blow to civilization (The world is descending into chaos without us leading the charge!). Where do you come down, Battleland reader?