On Friday, March 17, the UN Security Council approved the resolution for the establishment of NO FLY ZONE over Libya. The main objective of the military action was protecting of the civilians from the threat of the Gaddafi's army and the militia. The wording of the resolution included "...by all means necessary..." which opens the possibilities of targeting not only anti-aircraft weapons, but also any heavy armor, and the artillery of all sorts. The only restriction included prohibiting the "occupying forces". This line alone could be interpreted as allowing for the 'special forces' actions, or temporary military reinforcements of the opposition forces by the coalition troops (although this interpretation was initially dismissed by the Coalition).
It's been four days of heavy bombardment of the Libya's military installations located in the West of the country, including the capital city - Tripoli. To the general surprise, the first news on Saturday provided information of the unilateral French Air-force action, during which 24 of the French fighter-jets obliterated Gaddafi's forces trying to repossess Benghazi. The smoldering remains of the armored vehicles and personnel transporters as well as heavy artillery stood a somber witness of the Coalition punishing hand.
After the four nights, and more than 160 Cruise missiles delivered with the surgical precision to the designated military targets, the Gaddafi's army has been deprived from any own air-force and generally blinded in respect to the Coalition air power enforcing the No-Fly Zone over Libya. However, no military campaign is safe, even when the technological superiority is as overwhelming as in the case of the Libyan conflict. Even after destroying Gaddafi's air-defenses no allied plane is completely secure, can be hit 'accidentally' by a shoulder-to-air missile or even a small arms fire... or suffer the technical difficulties as in the case of one of American F15 fighter-jets which crashed in a vicinity of Benghazi. Fortunately, both crewmen who ejected when the problem occurred, have been recovered (one by the Marines Recovery Team, and the other by the rebel forces).
In the five days since the UN No-Fly Zone Resolution, Colonel Gaddafi confirmed again and again his untrustworthy status, offering already twice a cease-fire, while his forces were in the process of attacking the rebel-controlled cities. It seems that the concept of TRUTH is completely foreign to all of the Mid-Eastern Dictators (already fallen or in the process of being toppled, from Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi, to Saleh). After a few days absence from the spot light, Colonel Gaddafi spoke to a small group of his supporters tonight. As always defiant, and melodramatic, he shouted repeatably that "he was not afraid of the imperialistic intervention and he would be victorious at the end".
While Gaddafi indulged the Libyan State TV viewers with the usual clownish performance, CNN aired the interview with Secretary Clinton who hinted that there were already some 'behind the scenes' communications with the Gaddafi's regime in regard of "the options" which would be still open for the deposed Dictator.
-------------
Let's have a closer look at the Coalition role in imposing the UN Resolution, and all it's implications.
Although the UN Mandate covers only "humanitarian" action, directed in crippling the Government forces and their abilities to harm the civilians, all the involved powers state that at the end Gaddafi would have to GO. Even considering the UN Mandate very precisely, leaving Gaddafi in power (like Hussein in Iraq after the 1st Gulf War) would have the dire consequences to the population of Libya. Gaddafi "promised" already several times, that he "would go door to door" and punish all the opposition members. In this aspect, I wouldn't dismiss it like all the lies he utters on other occasions. His track record proves it. There is no doubt - in order to prevent a genocide in Libya, Gaddafi must be removed from power. At the same time Colonel Gaddafi has not been designated as a target. According to the letter of the Resolution and the general understanding of the Coalition intentions, the Dictator has to be removed from power by the Libyans themselves.
So far, after 4 days of the "Operation Odyssey Dawn", the USA leads the action delivering the most of the missile strikes, as well as technical "know-how", jamming, logistics, air-tankers for the Coalition planes. The initial military involvement of the US forces was supposed to be eventually substituted by the NATO armies enhanced by participation of the Arab countries (as we already know - very limited Arab countries participation - 4 fighter jets from Qatar). It has been known from the very beginning of the operation that the US wouldn't want to lead yet another assault on another Arab Country. However, there is a split of opinions between the members of the NATO, on a subject "who would lead the operation", as well as any particular responsibilities of the Coalition members.
It seems, that the NATO members, being the sovereign countries themselves, may decide on their own if they would like to pursue any additional objectives, not included in the general operational goal by the Command of the Operation. It opens the option of active actions against the Dictator and his family personally by any Coalition member on it's own.
Gaddafi's propaganda machine already accused Denmark of being on a Crusade against him, after the Danish Cruise missiles hit one of the buildings in his compound.
Coalition missiles and planes have been very successful in destroying Gaddafi's air defenses, air-force, as well some of the heavy armor and artillery in the vicinity of the rebel stronghold, Benghazi. Any military convoy in this desert country is a fair game for the Coalition fighter-jets. However, it becomes obvious, that Gaddafi's forces adapted to the imposed conditions already, operating their tanks and the artillery pieces in the rebel controlled territories, hiding within the civilian settlements. One can not forget about the government 'sleeper cells', consisting of well armed ground troops, but including also some tanks and mortars, which (as reported from Benghazi) can operate against the opposition forces within the cities.
It has been anticipated that while the Western forces pound the Gaddafi's defenses, some members of the close to the Dictator circles might actively help in removing the Tyrant. Although some of the army units and the high rank officers defected to the opposition, the awaited coup hasn't happened. Maybe it's due to the fear of failure, and swift punishment, or the fear to be persecuted and punished by the opposition, for already committed atrocities.
It becomes more and more likely, that if Gaddafi doesn't surrender and doesn't leave, the conflict (including the Coalition involvement) might be prolonged indefinitely, or might require the dreaded ground operation. In the latter case the political consequences of such action may be very difficult to deal with, starting from the protests form Arab League and all already opposed countries like Russia, China..., but also the public opinion shift in the Arab countries which would be devastating. Not even considering the popular opposition within the participating countries...
So, what is the plan? Do we have the plan B if Colonel Gaddafi is more stubborn and defiant than anticipated?
-------------
The opposition within the participating countries has already started, at least in the USA.
Although almost 44% of the population supports the decision of joining the fight against Gaddafi, the same amount of the population opposes it. This by itself is not that harmful. However the split in the American Congress is much more significant and dangerous.
When Pres. Obama was debating if at all join the UN effort in creating the No-Fly Zone, some republican Senators (like Sen. John McCain, from Arizona) were criticizing the President for the indecision, playing the high note of the Principles of Democracy and the moral obligation of such countries like America...
Now, on both sides of the isle the Senators and Representatives raise their contemptuous voices. To everybody's surprise Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D. from Ohio) accused the president of the unconstitutional decision, when he "failed" to ask the Congress of the USA if to "go to war against Libya".
Unfortunately, looking at the political conditions in the US, one may conclude that no matter what would the President chose, the Washington politicians would criticize it and oppose it only because it was decided by the President who, for one reason or another, they hate. Outside of Washington, the Obama's popular approval is much better (Gallup weekly approval rating is 48% - 3% higher than Clinton's in a similar period of his presidency)
-------------------
It brings us to the last question, initiated in the title of this article: Should we be there (Libya) at all?
I quoted already the popular approval of 44% for the American involvement in the imposing of the UN Resolution 1973. What makes the Libyan situation worthy the commitment of American resources and putting the troops in a harm's way? What makes the other international situations in which the genocide occurs NOT worthy our involvement?
All the presidents sang the "Democracy" song very loud. It helped the Eastern Block countries to overturn the communist regimes and enter the new, democratic era in their history.
The American and NATO involvement in the Balkans helped preventing unimaginable atrocities (although it escalated from the "no-fly zone"). We tried to maintain the peace in Somalia, but it backfired to the point of the shameful withdrawal, leaving the country in chaos - which developed into the fully fledged civil war.
And then, in 1994 came another African conflict - Rwanda, where within 100 days, the ethnic cleansing caused 800,000 dead and countless amount of wounded. No one reacted on time.
Few years later, in 2003 almost 400,000 people died and almost 2.5 million have been displaced as a result of of atrocities by the Sudanese government-sponsored Janjaweed militia. No one reacted on time.
There were conflicts in Kongo, Chad, Ivory Coast (current), Algeria (both decades ago, and current), and many others. What is the decisive factor making them actionable, or not?
Many critics of the policies of the Western countries would list THE OIL as this decisive factor. Oil definitely changes the perception of the country who owns a lot of it in the eye of the World. It was probably the only reason for the "liberation" of the Iraqis from the brutal Dictator - Saddam Husein.
However, I believe that it's much more complicated in other cases.
After failures to provide the assistance and stop the atrocities in Rwanda, or Darfur the possibility of genocide in Libya is the sufficient reason to do anything what is physically possible to prevent it (and I hope that the fact that Libya produces 2% of the World's oil is not the most important factor in this equation).
