Finding a Strategy for Libya

In today's WP op-ed piece, David Ignatius' search for clarity in President Obama's Libya policy leads him to wonder if indeed a formula has been found, which is that ". . . The United States should use military force unilaterally only when it involves core U.S. national interests; in other cases, such as Libya, the United States should act militarily only with the support of its allies."

He adds, "Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending 'realist' and 'humanitarian interventionist' themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family."

He concludes, "Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error."

Putting aside terms and labels that one learns in an International Relations class, determining a strategy for the Middle East phenomenon should be shaped and formed by the nature of the phenomenon. In other words, the nature of a conflict should determine strategy, and not the other way around. To come up with a formula before the facts is to engage in theorizing, a mental exercise in abstraction.

I like to think that the strategy that is evolving, even though slow, is being shaped by a reasonable understanding of ME realities as they unfold.