Cooperation Manifests as a Zero-Sum Strategic Principle

I am beginning to wonder if the cooperative nature of our strategic thinking hurts our allies, and perhaps even ourselves. I say this because under cooperative constructs, our allies are acting as if they are helpless without our cooperation, or more accurately, assistance. France is basically saying that with this plea.

France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said Wednesday that there was still time for military intervention to turn the tide against embattled leader Moammar Gaddafi in Libya. All the United States and other major powers had to do, he suggested, was follow France’s lead to pass a quick Security Council resolution and then send warplanes to neutralize Gaddafi’s air force.

“This is urgent,” Juppe declared on his blog, adding: “We have often seen in our contemporary history that the weakness of democracies leaves the field open to dictatorships. It is not too late to defy this rule.”

Juppe’s clarion call was the latest entry in an unusual and unclear diplomatic initiative by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government. Even as Gaddafi’s military closed in on rebel forces retreating to their last major redoubt in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city, the French campaign continued at the United Nations with a proposed council resolution for military action by outside powers.

It is less than 800 miles from Toulon to Tripoli, and yet France with its enormous military infrastructure (by European standards) is sufficiently politically powerless to exercise military and political influence within their own regional. France has placed their entire foreign policy in the hands of foreign diplomats at the United Nations, and is frustrated because they are apparently powerless?

I personally do not believe the US has any business getting involved in Libya. I say this fully understanding that within days we are almost certainly going to see an enormous massacre on television in Benghazi. The US is a global power, so it is inaccurate to suggest Libya is outside of our sphere of influence - because it almost certainly is. It is more accurate to suggest that US interests are better served by not getting involved than they would be if we did get involved.

I could be wrong though. It is important to note that the debate regarding US interests in Libya is not actually taking place in the US. The debate regarding involvement in Libyan affairs is taking place in the G8, NATO, the United Nations, the Arab League, etc. I am not particularly bothered that the US is not stepping up to lead on Libya. What does bother me though is that our foreign policy is currently answering to many masters, like the institutions and organizations listed above, but is currently not being addressed with a debate by our own Congress.

Is collective incapacity an unintended side effect of cooperative strategy? The answer may be yes, because strategic cooperation has manifested into a zero sum multinational strategic approach whereby together - something or nothing - will be done.

The key point is not that something or nothing will be done, rather that for anything to be done under current cooperative strategic thinking, action can only be taken with everyone's approval. Countries that lack the ability to act unilaterally, whether it is by self imposed political restriction or due to the absence of capabilities, are in fact hollow states powers. France and Britain, both members of the UN Security Council, may in fact represent two such hollow states today.

The Libyan rebels may enjoy the support of Britain and France, but as these nations are only hollow states, Libya can only expect hollow support.