| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa North |
| Not Until We Know What We're Getting Into |
| 2011-03-20 |
| As the United States, France, and Britain take the plunge into Libya's internal conflict, we need to be very careful about understanding what the objectives really are. Proponents of intervention offer a mix of three distinct objectives being sought -- and they don't necessarily match. First, yesterday's U.N. Security Council Resolution allows for the use of "all necessary means" to protect civilians, which is great except that nobody who knows anything about military operations -- and no one who I have talked to in the military -- believes that the no-fly zone will achieve that. If you look at the tactics being used by the Muammar al-Qaddafi regime, it's ground forces that are executing the regime's oppression. Where we have seen bombings, it is primarily of rebel arms depots or barracks. A second objective being advanced by intervention proponents -- but not supported in the resolution -- is the need to tilt the balance of power away from Qaddafi. The no fly zone stands little chance of achieving this either; it's a more than 600-mile trip from the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to Tripoli, and even if the rebels had air support on their journey, Qaddafi's forces could clean their clocks as they advanced. To really tip the balance, you'd probably need sustained close air support and arms. Yet paragraph nine of the earlier resolution (1970) expressly forbids arming the rebel forces. So if we really want to tip the balance of power and arm the rebels, as the Egyptians seem to be doing, we need to recognize that we will be in violation of a U.N. Security Council Resolution. And again, there's no guarantee it would work. The final objective is the maximalist one: regime change. Nearly every Western leader has said it: Qaddafi must go; he's not fit to lead. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even called him a "creature." But if you want to achieve regime change, you need to have broader debate, and frankly, you would probably need foreign military boots on the ground. Yet everyone who supports this maximalist objective has approved only minimalist tactics. In short, while we believe we are ready to "do something" in Libya, we are having a debate over what tactics we find acceptable, rather than what strategy will succeed. This actually plays into Qaddafi's hands. Now he knows that the air option is out. But he also knows that Western powers will be unwilling to send in troops -- the only thing that would assure he is removed from power. The message he'll take away is to go hard on the ground war. It's not clear we know who we are supporting, either. In any conflict between two parties, the weaker party always wants third-party support. The rebels know exactly how to play the tune that we want to hear. They have been waving banners -- both in Arabic and English -- asking for a no-fly zone. There are reports of volunteers recruited to the rebel forces who are first required to shave, because they don't want their men to appear Islamist. The rebels have silenced or hushed some of the Islamist leaders who are involved on their side. And the spokesmen they put forward speak solid English and talk about Jeffersonian democracy. They know exactly what key words to mention; they know how to play on the moral language. The West will "let us down," without intervention, they argue. The trouble is, although we are prepared to "do something" and pull out the most impressive kit in the U.S. toolbox -- military power -- we aren't actually willing to get involved at the level required to win. This minimal engagement does more harm than good. Not to mention that there are plenty of conflicts that are far more -- or at least equally -- pressing. In October and again this spring, for example, the African Union requested a no-fly zone from the U.N. Security Council to patrol Somalia. Guess how many French and British planes are flying over Mogadishu today? None. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #1 It would be a little early to expose the war gaming that has already taken place. Just know, he will not last. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-03-20 17:11 |