The end is nigh for Qaddafi and while it may yet be several days or even a week before he is captured or appears abroad, theColonel is no longer the Libyan ruler. The rebellion by the Libyan people, assisted by NATO's aiar campaign has taken 6 months--short by historical standards of insurgencies and rebellions, though longer than American and European populaces expected. But no matter, Qaddafi will be gone soon enough and beyond operational expenses (expensive yes, but peanuts compared to the west's adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq) the Libyan mission has been quick, cheap and relatively easy for America and (slightly less so) for its allies.
However, now the truly difficult work begins, both for the Libyan people as they attempt to build a government and a state largely from scratch, and for NATO as it endeavors to find a way to assist that process. In a brief twitter exchange yesterday Daniel Serwer responded to Andrew Exum's and Marc Lynch's* concerns about a post-Qaddafi Libya by saying the EU should be the worrying and the US's role is simply to get them to step up. After all, it's their lake in their backyard. He is largely correct, and both Exum and Lynch seemed to agree (though RT not implying agreement etc). If anything is true it is that the US cannot afford, does not want and will not be able to assume control of yet another developmental mission in the greater Middle East. The countries that should take the lead in helping the Libyan National Transition Council (NTC) build a parliament, police force, judiciary system, military and so on are the countries that so agitated for action and support of the rebels in the first place. Britain and France. However, this position should not be taken to the extreme. Everyone knows that despite America pulling back from combat missions over Libya, without the drone reconnaissance (and ocasional strike), AWACS patrols, and other ISR and SAR assets the coalition forces were unlikely to succeed. America is even selling laser guided bombs to the European militaries as its allies have failed to stockpile enough. All this reflects a fact that is as true in the transition from war to post-conflict development as it was during the bombing campaign; America has certain unique assets that only it can bring to bear, assets that its allies rely and that the US should be careful but not stingy about supplying.
Two unique assets quickly occurred to me as I drafted the introduction though there are undoubtedly more, from which the Obama administration can pick and choose as requested by the Libyan people and NATO allies. First are the American special forces, particulary the Army special forces or Green Berets. As Gulliver over at Ink Spots demonstrated in his post last week, Foreign Internal Defense (FID), i.e. training foreign militaries, has historically been the primary mission for much of their history. It is only in the last ten years, with the necessities of Iraq and Afghanistan, that they have become known primarily as 'door-kickers'. Given the concern of some in the special forces community about moving away from their doctrinal strengths (h/t Gulliver) and the need for the new Libyan rebels to transition away from a brave but largely untrained militia to a professional fighting force, the US special forces are uniquely capable of providing the type of large scale training required. I should probably note here that I do not think any large scale deployment of US troops is necessary nor in any way desirable. That the Obama Administration kept any serious discussion of ground troops at bay is commendable and should be continued. But one of the first prerequisits for any stable state is its ability to secure its borders (as America has learnt to its cost in Iraq and Afghanstan) and so America should offer the NTC trainers for its newly formed military. A not inconsequinetial side benefit would be an early, and with luck and work, long and deep relationship between the US and new Libyan miltiaries that can help impart democratic norms such as respect for civilians and civilian rule.
Insititutions of higher education are a second unique asset the United States possesses and should play a major role in Libya in the coming months and years. Again, it is not the fact of their existance that makes them unique but the scale. Great Britain has dozens of universities (all of which are struggling to educate British studens let alone provide assistance to Libya) whereas the US has hundreds. The United States should open up educational visas to any Libyan who wishes to come to the US to study public policy, economics, engineering and other subjects that the State Department deems vital to helping the new Libyan state grow and mature. A scholarship fund should be created, large snough to educate many students, and the existence of this program should be widely advertised throughout Libya--not just in Benghazi and Tripoli whose citizens dominate the political discourse as it is. In addition, the US should offer the NTC as many advisory visits as it wants from US univerisity and private sector experts-- in public policy, of course, but also in the areas such as civil engineering, police and judiciary formation and educational systems. The US government would be pay for these visits and should ensure that all these US-funded consulantants have both an understanding of Libya political realities and an appreciation that the new Libyan state cannot and will not mimic the West. While the scholarship program plays more directly to America's unique strenths (and with luck some of the students may stay, bolstering America's own lack of engineering students), given the vast size of the American unicersity system it will have the luxury of selecting experts who understand their field and the realities of Libya. Some people will undoubtedly claim the US cannot afford these programs. I would respond that the US invested well over 1 billion dollars over six months to remove Qaddafi from power. Surely it is justifiable to commit at least a similar amount to help set Libya on a path that will prevent the rise of another dictator?
During the air campaign over Libya the Obama administration offered a new vision of US foreign policy and power projection, one that did not require American troops to constantly be the tip of the spear. Instead, leveraging unique assets to support regional allies in pursuit of mutual goals (the protection of civilians and support of the rebels), the Administration has accomplished its goal-the removal of Qaddafi from power. Once Qaddafi has left Obama must transition to a similar supporting role that once again makes use of America's unique capabilitie. Now it will be assets such as force training and educational opportunities rather than Paveways and Predators that can aid NATO allies, the NTC and the Libyan people as they attempt to make the transition from rebellion to stable government and secure state.
*Full Disclosure-Professor Lynch was my undergraduate thesis advisor.
