by Rachel Marsden
Because it's the
When Libya's Muammar Gaddafi was killed in the fog of war last week, Obama was quick to praise the "strength of American leadership around the world," while simultaneously bragging: "Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objectives, and our
Let's cut through the spin: By "American service members," Obama means soldiers in American uniforms deployed by the U.S. military. He didn't choose those words by accident. Americans working for private security firms contracted by the U.S. government are currently present in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but conveniently don't technically count as U.S. soldiers.
There's nothing wrong with the government outsourcing of military efforts to arms-length entities -- many talented Special Forces and intelligence personnel have joined these private firms for the higher pay and greater freedom in mission choice. Not all of them are mall security guard types looking to play Lawrence of Arabia. The free market applies to their performance, with competent firms ultimately getting more and renewed opportunities. But outsourcing cannot be a substitute for strong, visible, top-down leadership.
The flip side of outsourcing is that when the commander in chief of the American Armed Forces can say, as with the Libyan mission, that America had no troops in American uniform officially on the ground, while the French were sending both hardware and hundreds of uniformed military ground personnel, it's then difficult to lay equal claim to the spoils of victory. In contrast to Obama, French President
As much as select ignoramuses will whine that the Libyan mission was about oil, the truth is that Libya wasn't even on the radar until Gaddafi started getting twitchy during the Arab Spring and clamping down on dissidents. This provided an opening for military action so firmly under the guise of humanitarianism that French leftists expressed the highest level of support for the war among all possible ideological groups in both the United States and France. If oil contracts are now in play, that's just a perk rather than a cause of war in itself. Libya has to sell it to someone, and it may as well be to countries that share our Western values.
In trying too hard to project a lack of direct leadership and control in military action, as Obama has been doing -- particularly in contrast to his predecessor,
Power and influence are synonymous with energy and oil. Russia's Vladimir Putin figured this out a long time ago, and has figured out how to use oil hegemony to build a transnational empire including Japan, Europe, South America, China and the Middle East. It's also why he's so obsessed with the Arctic at the moment. The Libyan oil presence of Russia's state-owned Gazprom is now in jeopardy in the wake of Russia's opposition to Libyan military action. This window of opportunity should have been a perfect, fumble-proof pass straight into Obama's arms. If reports of the new Libya more tightly embracing Sharia law prove correct, influence through energy could prove vital.
Image matters, and America can't afford Obama's backseat-driving approach to wartime leadership -- particularly when oil is at stake.
"Obama Risks an Oil Opportunity"