Gaddafi killed: A new kind of US foreign policy success

Interim Libyan leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil  and US President Obama at the UN, September 2011 Obama and the US have embraced the transitional Libyan authorities

"Wow", said Hilary Clinton as she was handed a Blackberry with the news out of Libya.

Gaddafi's death will be a relief to President Obama and his administration. That's on the fairly simple grounds that he backed NATO action, called for him to go, and now he's gone.

In an awkward phrase, coined by an anonymous official, the policy was "to lead from behind."

Most Americans see Gaddafi as a villain. They too will be glad he has gone.

Despite a brief rehabilitation when he chose to be on America's side during President George W Bush's war on terror, most will associate him with the Lockerbie bomb: a crazy, slightly sinister man, almost a caricature of a mad Middle Eastern dictator.

The road that led us to this day tells us a lot about Barack Obama's foreign policy as a whole, and its sometimes uncomfortable mix of idealism and realism.

A less assertive America

Mr Obama's foreign policy is driven by a sense that, particularly in the Arab world, the US must step back a pace, not be seen as a bully, always hectoring or imposing its will using physical force.

It seeks to ensure that the US crafts alliances, and does not tell friends to follow.

This is reinforced by the pragmatic belief that America cannot afford to do everything, everywhere, and must choose to do only what matters most.

Inside the White House they will be pleased that Muammar Gaddafi has gone and the regime has changed. But they will be delighted that it will be seen by the world as a victory for the Libyan people, not the American president.

Obama deliberately took the back seat during the Nato action as well. He stressed that there would be no American troops on the ground and the French and British would be leading the air sorties.

This was partly for those reasons of the perception of American power. But it was also because President Obama was repeatedly told by security advisors that Libya was not a vital national interest for the US, even if it was for Europeans. So Europeans were left to take the lead.

For ages many Europeans have argued that the US should be less assertive, but when it happened it was uncomfortable for some.

For more than 50 years "the West" has grown used to the US being out in front. It is odd when it doesn't happen.

To cajole or to lead?

But let's not go over the top. Even though they didn't shout about it from the rooftops, American forces were deeply involved.

The total cost to the US so far stands at just over $1bn. There have been 7,725 US sorties including 145 predator drone strikes. Without American involvement behind the scenes it probably couldn't have been done.

The perception of the American position wasn't all deliberate. There really was a good deal of muddle.

As so often Obama took a while to decide what to do. Crucial allies like the UK and France were kept in the dark as some argued for intervention to prevent a humanitarian crisis, while others said that America could not afford, in any sense, another military adventure in the Arab world.

In the end it was fear of being judged a moral failure that drove the decision.

The president was told that thousands could die in a massacre in Benghazi and he wasn't going to be held responsible for that.

But if President Obama's policy has been a success on its own terms, it leaves others in the US deeply worried. They don't think their country should encourage, cajole, help and guide. They think it should lead - that it should be seen to lead in fact and in deed.

And if it doesn't it is not clever - it is defeatist, and will inevitably lead to a diminution of power. They may raise their voices, not today, but when the dust settles.

There are others still who think that backing the people in the Arab world, however quietly, is paving the way for jihadist regimes that will be hostile to American interests.

Making sure they are wrong is where the state department's focus is now. The coming weeks and months will not have the drama of the events that are unfolding. They may not even be reported in detail in much of the Western media.

But the US state department is deeply involved in how Libya develops, and that will be the true test of the success or failure of Barack Obama's policy.

Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

An ending - and a beginning

Mark Mardell says farewell to his years as North America editor, and introduces his new analysis blog.

Read full article

More on This Story

Libya after Gaddafi


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 431.

    the debate should have been about obama violating the trust of he will never admitt even to saying that it was his forgein policy to take out regime, or he will never use the word, won the war without loss of an american soldier, this will bring him closer to admitted he violated the powers given to him by UN...

  • rate this

    Comment number 430.

    what everyone calls as obama's sucess is actually , his violation the mandate he was given by UN, which was to protect the civilians and not to overthrow the regime...his cunningness to abuse the responsiblities he was given is seen as sucess of his forgein policy is encouraging him to repeat this cunningness, he should be held accountable for abusing the trust he waas given.

  • rate this

    Comment number 429.

    Another BHO's foreign policy success:

    Tunisia's Islamist party, Ennahda, is claiming victory in Sunday's elections, the first free poll of the Arab Spring.

    Its main rival, the secular centre-left PDP party, has admitted defeat.

    Its main rival, the secular centre-left PDP party, has admitted defeat.

    So now you have it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 428.

    colonelartist (416),

    “Outdated sytem called democracy ...”

    We are waaaaaaaaiting for your alternative(s).


  • rate this

    Comment number 427.

    Patients in government-run hospitals in Syria are being tortured in an attempt to suppress dissent, an Amnesty International reports (BBC).

    Another Obama Administration's foreign policy success?


Comments 5 of 431



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.