Clinton, Gates (& Tom) discuss the limits of Libyan action on 'Meet the Press'

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, March 28, 2011 - 11:20 AM Share

I was on Meet the Press yesterday, following Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. I was struck at how frequently they emphasized the short-term, limited nature of the U.S. action in Libya, and how they used the past tense to discuss it:

Gates: "I think that the no fly zone aspect of the mission has been accomplished."

Clinton: "I think we've prevented a great humanitarian disaster."

Gates: "we see our commitment of resources actually beginning to -- to decline."

Gates: "in terms of the military commitment, the president has put some very strict limitations in terms of what we are prepared to do."

Gates: "I don't think it's [Libya] a vital interest for the United States. But we clearly have interests there. And it's a part of the region, which is a vital interest for the United States."

I also was struck at how much more assertive Clinton seemed than Gates. A friend of mine calls this "State's War."

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:LIBYA, MEDIA, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

(16)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GOLD STAR FATHER

3:30 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Clinton and Gates

I was very struck with Hillary Clinton's retoric. What I saw on Meet the Press was the Sec Defense and the Madame Secretary of War speaking.

JPWREL

3:50 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Tom yours is a good

Tom yours is a good observation. I had the feeling that Gates acted a little snake bit as he had good reason to be and Clinton a bit more adventuresome. Is this Hillary’s way of beefing up her ‘tough gal’ credentials so she can be considered a viable CIC at some future date?

TOM RICKS

4:11 PM ET

March 28, 2011

One thing I've learned in Washington

One thing I've learned at Washington is that you can never figure out motive. I got leaks from people for all sorts of reasons, and rarely were they ideological. (Often they were just personal.)

That said, I suspect what may be driving Hillary is the memory of watching her husband's administration grapple for years with Bosnia. I must say I think she has handled the Euros well so far, and I am not the biggest of Clinton fans--Bill or Hill.

Best,
Tom

ZATHRAS

4:56 PM ET

March 28, 2011

I think this is right

Bosnia rather than the more recent human catastrophe in Darfur is likely the thing in back of Sec. Clinton's mind, because Darfur happened after her husband's administration ended.

I have to say -- as someone who has often defended President Obama from the charge that he is an awful more like Bush than people thought two years ago -- that this whole Libya thing is pretty Bush-like. Bush's narrative in Iraq included an important bit about how the first Bush administration adhered scrupulously to what America's allies wanted in 1991, and humanitarian disasters resulted. Bush and his people were going to do things differently in 2003. Bosnia, which happened on the other party's watch, wasn't part of the story back then. Iraq -- in which the initial military campaign went pretty damned well for the first few weeks -- isn't part of the story now.

I don't think this is all, though. With respect to Libya today, there are narratives and there is The Narrative. Libya is part of it. Darfur (and Ivory Coast, for that matter) isn't.

Clinton has always been big on narratives, or stories, and the one she (along with the President) are onto here is the story of the Arab Spring. Those with historical memories of only modest length remember former President Bush's oft-repeated cheer line "freedom is on the march." The idea is now that this is actually happening in the Arab countries, and the United States must prevent the freedom marchers from losing.

Not with ground forces, because Arabs would object to that. Not by striking at Qadhafi directly, because Arabs would object to that at least as much. I suppose it is worth pointing out that a strike aimed at Qadhafi right at the start of the current campaign, when he was still making public appearances, would have crippled the Libyan government's command structure and morale while killing many fewer Libyans than we are currently. I only mention this because Sec. Clinton is so concerned about humanitarian consequences of the fighting in Libya. I am sure she is sincere, but gaining the favor of the Arab League is really important to The Narrative. So she isn't going overboard on this humanitarian stuff.

I foresee significant difficulties with The Narrative in the months and years to come. I wonder if Obama and his people will respond to these as Bush and his team responded when things in Iraq turned out to be different from their preconceptions. I also wonder how many more Arab civil wars Obama and Clinton will get us into.

JPWREL

5:40 PM ET

March 28, 2011

ZATHRAS as is customary your

ZATHRAS as is customary your analysis is very sound and admirably thought out (well written too!), but in my view ‘Narratives’ are the first thing that go into the waste bin. All administrations regardless of party play these things out by the seat of their pants some better than others.

STEVE C

6:50 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Not the waste bin

"‘Narratives’ are the first thing that go into the waste bin"

..... The mangler

ZATHRAS

7:24 PM ET

March 28, 2011

I thank JPWREL for the kind words...

...and I don't disagree with him, as far as what administrations do is concerned. However, in terms of justifying what they do -- both to themselves and to the American public -- narratives can be very important.

Moreover, both Clinton and Obama spent much of their professional lives before January 2009 immersed in the world of campaign politics, in which narratives are all-powerful. Objectively, both of them probably know there is a good chance that wherever Libya, Egypt and other Arab states wind up, it won't be at anything resembling what we call democracy. Bush's more limited imagination might not have reached that far, if the Iraq experience is any indication. But the power of the The Narrative to inspire an emotional response from Obama and his team shouldn't be underestimated -- not that it is the only factor here by any means.

FG42

4:03 PM ET

March 28, 2011

When I was assigned to

When I was assigned to Headquarters Marine Corps in the 1990's, it was common to hear staff officers at all levels criticizing the State Dept. for being "trigger-happy" and over-eager to commit the troops to achieve a "military solution." I thought it ironic at the time that the diplomats were so eager to use military force, while the military was far more cautious and reluctant. Not too suprising, though, considering that the military has to pay the price in terms of blood and sweat (and tears too).

SOLDIERSDIARY

6:24 PM ET

March 28, 2011

shout out

Good on Tom for giving this Blog a Shout-Out on Meet The Press...That was the best part of the show. Someone send him a signed book

BEARCAT

7:16 PM ET

March 28, 2011

However measured or far away?

Did he refer to us as "nattering nabobs of negativism" like Safire/Agnew?

HUNTER

6:33 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Remind me again

....what did this lady ever do to justify giving her so much power?

Sorry (because I know the hatchets are being sharpened) not because she is a lady - got no issues with that - just that she had no demonstrable experience to award her with that position. I'm sorry she was a Senator, but then there wasn't much to justify that either. i can go on....

JPWREL

6:50 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Hunter, I agree with your

Hunter, I agree with your general sentiment but does it really matter? I can think of plenty of Cabinet officers and SoS ‘s that were empty suits or had similar experience and often less than Hillary. Additionally, it’s the foreign policy of the President not his minions. If we have an issue with Hillary’s job performance, qualifications or general effectiveness then that’s on President Obama. If you have a Lieutenant under your command who can’t find his butt with both hands in the end whose responsibility is it if he messes up?

BEARCAT

7:22 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Because the Power is Delegated

Like JP said. You can delegate authority, you can't delegate responsibility.

Why would you take Clinton's "Expertise" over the SECDEF and CJSA?

This is bet your bars time for the Big Guy. He needs to be right about this.

Did you ever have a Boss who agreed w the last person that talked to them? You just wanted to be that last person.

BEARCAT

8:39 PM ET

March 28, 2011

SECDEF

Yep and I expect we won't get anybody better than SEC Gates.

What is Sara Lister up to these days?

RVN SF VET

10:15 PM ET

March 28, 2011

QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE

Well, it appears you go to Yale and graduate from law school or business school. That's about it! You already have the right father or you marry the right guy. If you have the right father, he got you into Yale and probably got you through "B" school. Then, you begin a series of figure head jobs backed by oilmen. Then, you jump the line to get into a corrupt state national guard (check current indictments) and learn to defend your state from Mexican air attack without letting it interfere with your political work. You drink a little. You're a nice guy and the oilmen make you governor. Next thing you know, you are president with a maniacal robot for vice-president guiding your hand for 6.5 years. Oh, you start a war to defend some vital national interest - TBA. Thank heavens "Curveball" showed up.

If you marry the right lying draft-dodger, you first pass the Arkansas bar and flunk the DC bar. You join your future husband teaching law at the University of Arkansas and he becomes governor and literally screws around. He becomes president and removes the word sex from a sex act, thus liberating millions of teenagers. You move to New York for 30 days and successfully run for Senator (like Bobby.) You do a good job and vote to go to war for a vital national interest - TBA. Then you lose the presidential nomination to a Harvard lawyer.

Now what is your problem? She's a lawyer ain't she? All them wonderful folks in Congress are lawyers, ain't they? Most appointees are lawyers, ain't they? They are all doing a great job and working hard, ain't they? They have made great laws, ain't they?

She is obviously fully qualified and has one qualification the foregoing lawyers don't. She's got balls, don't she?

GOLD STAR FATHER

10:27 PM ET

March 28, 2011

Meanwhile back at the ranch...

AC-130's and Warthogs do "humanitarian". I don't remember that mission in flight school. I musta been on the beach.