The War in Libya

President Obama had the benefit of seeing what the Bush presidencies did right and wrong in Iraq. That is how he got it right in Libya.

For the first Iraq war, President George H. W. Bush put together a coalition that included Arab states to respond to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. He then invaded with that multinational coalition. But he had the good sense not go to Baghdad. Instead he set up a no-fly zone over most of Iraq and imposed strict economic sanctions. The press in the United States paid scant attention to that decade-long no-fly zone and economic sanctions. But it was real and it crippled Saddam Hussein's ability to make war or build weapons of mass destruction.

During and following the first Iraq war, the United States publicly encouraged the Arabs in southern Iraq – Basra and the marsh Arabs – to rebel. They did so and were massacred when the West chose not to intervene on the ground but only maintain a no-fly zone. That was a cruel mistake.

For the second Iraq war, President George W. Bush could only put together a very limited coalition. He then invaded while stretching a UN Resolution and not waiting for a report from the weapons inspectors. President George W. Bush did go to Baghdad. We became an occupying power and 10 years later, American boots are still on the ground there.

President Obama called the second Iraq war a "dumb" war. He was right. And it taught him what a smart war in the Arab Middle East should look like.

President Obama waited. He was then accused of "dithering" and allowing Moammar Gadhafi to attack the rebels in Benghazi and reassert his antic authority over Libya. Others did not want us to go in at all and he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. But he waited.

While supposedly dithering, the president was letting the French and English take the lead. They tested support for multinational action and America became the moderating influence and not the bellicose bully. This waiting gave time for the League of Arab States and the African Union to go public with their support for a no-fly zone.

When the United States took the leadership to put the puzzle together, all of the parts were there. There was a broad-based international coalition; the UN Security Council resolution approving a no-fly zone passed with no negative votes; there was already evidence that airstrikes could stop Gadhafi forces.

The concept of a no-fly zone over originally referred to restricting air flights over the territory cited. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, the United Nations and NATO stretched the concept to include giving close air support and airstrikes on targets in Bosnia.

President Obama did not abandon the rebels to face alone the organized military forces of Moammar Qaddafi. The president and our NATO allies applied this expanded definition to include Tomahawk missile and fighter bomber attacks. These attacks broke up Qaddafi's offensive and prevented a massacre in Benghazi. The burning armored columns we can see on our TV demonstrate the effectiveness of the attack. The rebel forces were then able to regroup and counterattack, changing momentum of the war.

The official reason given by the president for our action, or any action by the UN, NATO and others, is the protection of the civilian population from attacks by Col. Gadhafi. This humanitarian task is the reason first cited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the other women in the administration who pushed for military intervention. However, the president and his press staff might spin the issue, the president's actual goal clearly includes the removal of Col. Gaddafi. But the president prefers to let the Libyan people do that.

The most compelling subtext is, of course, keeping alive the still spreading uprising of Arab peoples that began in Tunisia and Egypt. The popular movements that have now taken to the streets in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria would be crushed unmercifully by their rulers if Qaddafi were able to put down the rebellion in Libya. The president had to act or the spread of democracy would stall and what could him him him him him him him him him &be a new birth of freedom would be lost.

President Obama should be given credit for the deft, nuanced and successful way his administration is handling the whole Arab uprising. But he did have the example of the successes and failures of the two Bush administrations to guide him.