Withdrawal from NATO
Withdrawing from NATO will be one of the most tragic choices taken by the President. Withdrawal ensures that the geopolitical climate of West Europe will change dramatically, as will the rest of the world. In fact, the US is expected to lose the bulk of its strategic allies as a result of this move. This will further confuse matters for her and make the United States a high-risk environment. Through this step, Russia, as one of the Security Council members who abstained on the imposition of a "No-Fly Zone," is expected to gain even more clout. Russia is likely to affirm her position in regards to the war. The EU is also likely to come up with a stronger military force hence making it stronger than the US. In fact, the only benefit that the U.S stands to gain is a reduction in military spending.
Building the Coalition
Building the coalition as that built by Bush is not a walk in the park. This means that the members of the coalition are those willing hence building the coalition of the willing. Seeking the active commitment of the members such as finances is a tricky affair. In fact, building the coalition of the willing is considered inaccurate. Most of the countries that contribute to the troops in the coalition are small and usually, they have no economic muscle. The other issue will be for the countries to convince their citizenry as most of the citizens do not support the invasions made by these countries.
Getting Political Support
Getting political support from home is a good move as this would be to ensure that the President gets approval. However, quelling the suspicions and issues that are raised by the public would be the issue. In fact, the biggest challenge will be to convince the public about the expenditure and then justify the increased amount used for the humanitarian military operation.
Minimizing the Scope
The other plans are in order as minimizing the scope would be better. However, putting strategies to ensure that the reverse does not happen will be one of the greatest challenges for the coalition. In fact, the mission has to be clear and all the actions taken by the military should be based on humanitarian needs.
Post-Operation Conference
After successful restoration, I agree that the UN has to be given the mandate to carry on with the humanitarian aid as members of the coalition return home. The plan that is proposed here is well-crafted though it would present some problems.
Recommendations:
Working with NATO
The US works with NATO and not form an international coalition especially that the situation is dire and needs quick help. International Coalition has its challenges that when not properly handled may turn tragic.
Congressional Approval
Getting the Congressional approval will be the best move, however, the issue of the budget has to be adequately addressed. The public has to be enlightened that the move is meant to help them in the long term.
Decimating Government Forces
Having a plan to decimate the government forces of Libya is well-intended after the exit of Gadaffi. This kind of operation is not feasible within just a year. Humanitarian crisis entails a lot and the operation has to cover even the mess that might arise out of the combat. Therefore, a 2-year period is justified.
Guidelines for Aid and Funding
Transfer of aid to humanitarian force is well-intended after the exit of Gadaffi. Getting funds from coalition members has to be guided by proper structures. Some may join but they may not have standing forces.
Post-Operation Conference
Having a post-operation conference will be a good idea as any kind of operation executed must be tailored in a way that the shortcomings are addressed.
Lessons From Past Experiences
I acknowledge the fact that the President needs to rely on the principle of past experiences being a guide or a lesson to the actions taken later. Sending of arms to the rebels is not the best of ideas in case of such a war. In fact, U.S can never be too sure of the things that the arms would be used for. Another challenge would be to disarm the rebels after the mission is accomplished. Most of the groups that are usually armed end up turning to be terror groups. When they turn to be a terror group, they end up reversing their energy to the wrong courses such as attacking the innocent civilians. A good example is the supply of weapons to Afghanistan making the rebel groups turn to Al-Qaeda and later transform to ISIS.
Unilateral Action is Risky
Making solitary decisions will be quite detrimental. In fact, the worst-case scenario is just to have a "coalition of the willing." Having some kind of unapproved unilateral action in the face of the international body is likely to be tragic in case things do not turn out so well. Having a backup plan is always advisable. Sometimes, other member countries of the Security Council such as Russia are likely to support the disgruntled members ensuring that the US operation becomes unsuccessful.
Leadership in the Coalition
Getting the Congressional approval to come up with an international coalition remains one of the best decisions. However, to re-affirm their position in this kind of operation, the US needs to lead the coalition members in regards to military operations. This also means that the US will be going to the war with the approval of the country and hence showing respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. The aim of the coalition has then to be re-affirmed and its legitimacy confirmed.
