Thomas P.M. Barnett believes so:
Isn't this what we've always wanted in terms of a balanced world? Think about it: Libya was a case in which the US dared not act alone, but likewise one in which NATO clearly couldn't have pulled it off without us. The rebels never would have won without NATO's air cover, and within NATO, France couldn't have done it without the UK and vice versa. If you don't want unilateralism and you don't want interventions that aren't welcomed by the locals, this is exactly what it looks like. Yes, we can pull back the strategic lens and continue our worries about China's rising military might, but the only way that truly challenges is if you believe in that country's presumed linear economic growth trajectory lasting for a couple more decades – and that's just fantasy.
David Axe thinks this model is part of a general strategy of "offshore balancing." Hans-Inge Langø differs. For my part, I have yet to be convinced that the Libya intervention was wise. But as a way of empowering Europeans to tackle security problems ahead of the US, it was a strategic success – as with the ultimate toppling of Qaddafi. I'll repeat that I think foreign policy is becoming one of the Obama administration's real strengths – as potent and nuanced a management of global politics as anything since George H W Bush.
