Mission Creep in the Commentariat

The chattering classes in Washington have put forth an endless stream of commentary on the American intervention in Libya ever since the first planes began flying over Tripoli nearly two weeks ago. Much of is had blended together in my mind -- is the Obama doctrine really a doctrine? are we repeating the mistakes of Iraq (circa 2003)? Of Afghanistan (circa 1989)? What sort of RtoP precedent (that's "responsibility to protect" for you non-IR geeks out there) does this set?

But two voices caught my attention today -- both pushing for boots on the ground as the only logical extension to the original RtoP mission in Libya. Aside from the hawks on Capitol Hill, I hadn't seen too many commentators making this argument in the quite the realist vein as these two serious thinkers.

Anthony Cordesman of CSIS:

"From a Libyan viewpoint, dragging the country into a long political and economic crisis, and an extended low-level conflict that devastates populated areas, the net humanitarian cost will be higher than fully backing the rebels, with air power and covert arms and training."

And on ForeignPolicy.com, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik (Ret.) penned a piece entitled simply, "Boots on the Ground." Dubik:

"Contrary to the president's assurances, the only long-term political solution for Libya will require having Western troops on the ground. How would security otherwise be provided in a post-Qaddafi Libya? Not by air power and a few intelligence operators on the ground. Nor by the Libyan police and army, for they have committed crimes and atrocities against Libyan civilians on behalf of Qaddafi. And given that we don't really know the composition of the rebel force, can we expect it to behave with kindness and mercy?"

 A sea change in thinking on the Western role in Libya? Hardly. But it will be interesting to see if this approach gathers more adherents if the stalemate in Libya continues.