Michael Hayden: U.S. owns outcome in Libya

ONLY ON THE BLOG: Answering today’s five OFF-SET questions is Michael V. Hayden, a principal at the Chertoff Group, a security and risk-management firm created by former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

Hayden was Director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009, and Director of the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005.

In an OP-ED essay in The Washington Post (4-22-10) you and Michael Chertoff pose some extremely challenging questions: after the United States and NATO forces win in Libya, what kind of country will Libya become, who will run it—and how long will the U.S. involvement be to reach the political objectives that President Obama has articulated?

First of all, when you imagine a Libya without Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, what is your best hope?

Tough question.   Not too many models out there for Arab, non-monarchical, non-autocratic states.   Best hope is that Libya remans unified, none of its territory is particulary "ungoverned" and there is enough stability to allow its considerable oil wealth to be turned to building a physical and political infrastructure.

We read about an Interim Transitional National Council, a Justice and Democracy Party of Libya, a National Conference for the Libyan Opposition, various religious and military leaders, plus ex-patriots who have returned or want to.  Do you sense where Libya’s next leader will emerge from?

No one knows.  We're looking for a Jefferson (or even an Adams) but what we got are ex-regime officials, Benghazi intellectuals, returning expatriates and apparently, even a former Gitmo detainee.  As this shakes out we need to be careful–support those who share our values, but we shouldn't be beguiled by someone just because he speaks English or mimics Western ways.   

When you consider the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan—yes, different countries than Libya—what is the best role for the United States? Protecting the peace? Advising on creating democratic institutions and infra-structure? Building regional and international support for the new government? All of that or some of it?

Unfortunately (given all the other demands we face) all of the above.  We have intervened in a civil war and picked a winning side.  Given what we have said, what we have done–and most importantly given who we are–we have ownership of the ultimate outcome here.   

In the essay, you advise that the U.S. should begin serious planning about what happens after Gadhafi is gone, including what effort and resources and time will be required. From your point of view, who should be doing that planning—so it works and actually gets funded?

From the U.S. side this is a "whole of government" issue.  The NSC can orchestrate the response within the executive branch but this goes nowhere without Congressional support, and that will require more consultations than apparently have taken place to date. 

And what level of resources and time do you think might be required?

Hard to imagine this being measured in only weeks or months.  With relative stability and renewed oil production, the drain on our resources could be more psychic than physical–especially in terms of the political capital we will be willing to pay–but political capital is a precious resource and we have a variety of other issues to face in the region.