The Hill News

Almost four months since NATO airstrikes began against Muammar Gadhafi and his military, the United States has become a mere follower of a dysfunctional and fragmented international approach to Libya.  America’s irrelevance in the crisis is now clear. What is also evident is that the collapse of U.S. policy in the oil-rich North African country is a failure of faulted design.

President Barack Obama’s lack of assertiveness â€" as previously argued â€" and clarity of vision in foreign policy has come to fruition in dealing with Gadhafi. 

The U.S.-backed NATO intervention in Libya saw lively political debate here at home alongside a slow White House decision-making process.  Amidst accusations of horrible human rights abuses and war crimes by the Gadhafi regime, President Obama’s executive decision-making on Libya appeared aloof and indecipherable. It also seemed to blur ideological and party lines.

{mosads}For anyone on the right or the left, involvement in Libya was either deemed too slow to come or just too much in a military sense.  Still, for others, it constituted an unauthorized presidential pursuit of war and foreign intervention.  When action finally did come, amid much fanfare and unusually tough words, the White House ended up gambling with expectations of a quick 90-day military campaign.

Fast forward to today, and what you have is a United States that is all but absent on Libya â€" if not in Libya â€" militarily and diplomatically. 
The intensive NATO militar! y campaign, while ongoing, is now at a virtual strategic stalemate. In the meantime, a fragmented and decentralized international political effort is taking place with Russia, Italy, France and the United Nations leading the way. Their continued on-and-off, behind-the-scene, and rarely acknowledged effort to reach a political solution to the crisis, however, is proving ephemeral at best.  On the backdrop of it all, the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Gadhafi and some of his associates implicitly complicates any attempt at finding a viable political solution. 

Confusion beset the Obama administration policy on Libya from the beginning, particularly in trying to appease constituencies both on the left and the right. Implicitly supporting the ICC criminal prosecution of Gadhafi satisfied those on the left, specifically realizing Ambassador Susan Rice long-held support of the world’s criminal court. This is proving to have been a problematic diplomatic move which continues to undermine any political solution.

On the other hand, pushing for a NATO-led military campaign pleased more hawkish members of Obama’s foreign policy team â€" namely Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And as an added benefit, it also satisfied conservatives such as Karl Rove and Senator John McCain.  While both actions were not at odds, they did not necessarily fit any longer term strategic vision. In fact, throughout, the president’s own intentions and motivations were never clear.

The political and military realities in Libya have finally cracked open the shell to an empty U.S. political strategy on that country. Today, America is more of a spectator than a player in the Libyan theatre as the country goes through the ebbs and flows of tribal-centered civil war. 

For some, it is tempting to treat Libya policy today as an unintended casualty of U.S. domestic politics. One may advance the notion that the White H! ouse legitimate preoccupation with domestic economic issues su! ch as th e budget and raising the debt ceiling takes priority over foreign policy concerns of mid-level importance. But U.S. State Department diplomatic efforts around the world are hardly, if ever, conditioned by domestic politics. Except, of course, where public opinion at home is strongly involved or polarized. 

The reality is that President Obama’s all-pleasing approach to Libya lacked a clear strategy and only represented a mere gamble on a quick military resolution in ousting Gadhafi.  

Libya has ultimately been left to those who had a stake in it to begin with â€" the Europeans. As far as U.S. policy is concerned, there is no remedy in sight and no hope for change.  And going forward, America’s absence will be further reflective of a lame duck U.S. diplomatic team, including â€" but not necessarily limited to â€"UN Ambassador Rice and Secretary of State Clinton.

Nino Saviano is a political strategist and president of Savi Political Consulting LLC. He can be followed on Twitter @ninosaviano.