Four ways that George W. Bush would have handled the situation in Libya better than Obama has

Miles Taylor has written for The Chicago Tribune, The World Politics Review, The Daily Caller, and Arms Control Today. He works in the U.S House of Representatives and previously served in the Department of Homeland Security. He is co-founder and senior editor at Partisans.org.

Bush nostalgia has swept the airwaves as a parade of the president’s former advisors have taken to news shows to opine about President Obama’s military intervention in Libya.  These officials-turned-pundits—including Dana Perino, John Bolton, Karl Rove, and the like—have thoroughly bashed the White House for its approach to the situation.  But this begs the question:  how would George W. Bush have handled the Libya crisis?  Would he have done any better?

The answer to the latter question is “yes.”  This is obviously a subjective judgment but one made considerably easier by the Obama team’s poor handling of situation.  Over the past few weeks, President Obama has done the foreign-policy equivalent of hiding behind the couch with his hands over his head.  His chief missteps?  The President has been indecisive, unable to lay out clear strategic objectives, and anxious to dodge demands for American leadership.  That’s not how his predecessor would have handled it…

Bush would have been more decisive.  From the Global War on Terror to the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan, President Bush demonstrated one quality above almost all others: he was a deliberate and resolute leader. Supporters and critics alike will recall that Bush was fond of referring to himself the "decider." Like him or not, he took that role very seriously and did not equivocate when it came to pressing issues.

How would that have translated to the Libya situation? It means Bush would have almost certainly elected to take action when it mattered. To the contrary, his successor's team sat on the sidelines for weeks--hoping, praying that they could find an “out”--while Libyans were attacked by their own country's warplanes. It simply wouldn't have been the 43rd President's style, with his strong sense of justice and unwillingness to "pass the buck," to fiddle while Tripoli burned.

Bush would have established mission clarity. President Bush would have at least given Americans the courtesy of an Oval Office address before bombing Libya and would have laid out the mission clearly. Instead, his successor made the announcement in a low-quality audio recording while touring South America and has since failed to sufficiently outline U.S. objectives. The professional and experienced Bush national security team would never have stood for committing American forces to military action without publically defining a strategy.

Some critics might allege that the Bush administration didn’t have a clear mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. This couldn’t be further from the truth.  At the time of invasion, the United States had very clearly defined missions in both cases.  Because those missions were later altered does not mean they did not exist in the first place. By contrast, President Obama and his team have sent mixed messages about U.S. involvement in Libya.

Bush would not have committed to military action without reaching out to Congressional leadership.  This does not necessarily mean seeking “permission,” but rather doing what presidents have done for decades by ensuring the country’s top elected officials are briefed on important national security actions.

While the Obama team has finally caved to pressure by briefing senior Congressional aides, they were unable to answer critical questions—or explain for that matter what took so long to reach out to the Hill. The delay has been to the detriment of the mission, with Congressional support beginning to erode on all sides. This could have been avoided, or at least limited, if the President had reached out to allay Congressional concerns sooner.

Bush would have embraced America’s leadership role.  “To whom much is given, much is required.”  This favorite Bush saying sums out how the former president would have treated the Libyan crisis.  He wouldn’t have shied away from standing up to Qaddafi’s brutal assault on his own people. Bush recognized what may be an inconvenient truth: by virtue of its strength and prosperity, the United States underwrites global security. This means stepping up to the plate when called to action.  And the need for action was no more clear than when the other week the Arab League, whose membership includes many rabidly anti-American states, took the unprecedented step of asking for Western intervention.

But President Obama has tried to dodge the need for U.S. leadership at every turn, sitting virtually silent as France and Britain took the lead in condemning Qaddafi when fighting first broke out.  Rather, Obama has been quick to declare that the United States will be reducing its role and will instead hand off operations to allies on a continent that has spent the past two decades slashing defense budgets and retreating from the world stage.

Very few countries in the world have the political-military prowess to lead a coalition like this.  While the international community should be deeply grateful for the efforts of states like Britain and France, it should also be worried to see an American president so eager to take a backseat.

***

Rarely does a president commit the country to military action and face such swift denunciations for his handling of it.  But both sides of the aisle have expressed displeasure with President Obama’s lack of leadership, and that is a sad reality—not just for Americans who take pride in standing up for what is right—but for those in the world who so desperately depend on it.

If the Obama administration is still adrift in its search for a Libya policy, they may steal this line from Bush’s second inaugural address: “Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

Now is not the time to stand down.

Comments

[Phil]

In a word, it is called Leadership. Bush was a leader, Obama is not. An effective leader rallys people to his/her cause and in so doing, convinces them to follow. An effective community organizer rallys people to a cause and in so doing nudges them to take action while stepping aside.

[JimBob]

Decisiveness? Where's Osama. Why are there 400,000 dead in Darfur.

Mission clarity? The mixed message cited in the article seems to be the Obama Administration's intent. One can debate on if it is a 'better' approach, but it is not the first time nations have used the tactic. Bush had great domestic and international political capital for his wars. Obama does not; different approaches to use of power may be needed.

Congressional leadership? The article cited under this part of your writing states that "for now, neither party is speaking with a single voice."

Embracing America's leadership role? You cite the Arab League as a call to action. Within a day of action, the Arab League along with the African Union condemned Western actions in Libya along. Leaders should not blindly rush into every call and must exercise proper risk management. Not all calls are as they seem.

While America is indisputably the greatest nation in the world, we are still human, and we have finite resources. Effective use of force both hard and soft does not mean using it at every opportunity.
I think back to George Washington, who chose not to support - against great public anger - the French in their revolution against absolute monarchy.