Amid reports that Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces continue to make gains against the rebel forces to include air strikes on the rebel stronghold at Benghazi, it looks like the international community is reaching agreement to intervene militarily. A New York Times report quotes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying the turning point was the Arab League statement this past weekend, “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.” The article went on to state “Mrs. Clinton said she was hopeful that the Security Council would vote no later than Thursday. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, is in intensive negotiations over the language of a resolution, sponsored by Lebanon, another Arab state, and backed by France and Britain.”
It also is apparent that both the international community and the Libyan rebel forces on the ground now realize that a no-fly zone in and of itself will not achieve the desired results of stopping the advance of Qaddafi’s forces. A report in Al Jazeera stated “the Libyan people hope a no-fly zone will be enforced, however, ‘they are feeling more and more that basically everything lies in their own hands’. ‘What they are calling for now is weapons and money to bolster and train their forces and to make a credible defense’.”
In my last two blogs, I expressed concern over the calls for a no-fly zone. As mentioned, my concern was multi-leveled. I’m not trying to be snarky but since the demise of the draft in the United States there are fewer and fewer policy makers with a military background. Couple that with arm chair analysts who have gained experience on military strategy, tactics, techniques, and procedures through Hollywood movies and video games …well you get where I’m going with this. I’m not including the Libyan rebel fighters in this category. There are a number of military people, formerly loyal to Colonel Qaddafi among their members. I’m sure they called for a no-fly zone because they thought it would be the least intrusive option and there was a precedent since the international community had agreed on that course of action against another Arab nation, Iraq.
The bottom line for me, if you want a military action, what is the goal? Is it to defeat Qaddafi’s forces? Is it to stop them? Is it to force Qaddafi to agree to a cease fire? Once you decide on the goal, there are different possible actions for each goal. Some actions can get pretty ugly in terms of unintended consequences for the civilian population. If a decision is made to not only institute a no-fly zone but to establish what’s being called a no-drive zone as well for Qaddafi’s ground forces that means, bombing trucks, tanks, artillery, fuel depots, ammo depots; etc, which could and probably would result in civilian casualties. Make no doubt about it these and similar discussions are being worked out by military planners of those nations that would probably participate in these actions. While the diplomats and media have been running off at the mouth, the military types have been planning for a number of scenarios.
Think I’ll end here. As always, my views are my own.
