Today, the military decisions to go to Libya mandated by the UNSC Resolution 1973 seem to be pretty far as the West is getting bog down in Libya. France, the UK, and the US have been now involved militarily in Libya for over a month. Colonel Qaddafi has been intensely fighting in order to maintain his power over Libya. The rebels – even tho
ugh they are recognized by France; Spain has sent a special envoy to Benghazi, and US Senator McCain currently in Libya is praising the courage of rebels – cannot match Qaddafi’s forces for obvious reasons: lack of military training, lack of military capabilities, and lack of leaderships.
But, what are the strategic options for NATO and its allies in order to change the balance of power in Libya?
The first option would be to send troops on the ground in order to oust Qaddafi and ultimately send him to The Hague. It could be NATO second ongoing deployment after Afghanistan. However, one can identify several problems with this scenario. First, NATO does not have the legitimacy from the UN to send troops on the ground. According to the resolution, the UN only authorized the use of force in order to protect civilian through the enforcement of a no-fly zone. Regime change was not on the menu. Second, the US is trying to forget the Mogadishu’s failure in 1994 costing the lives of US soldiers and creating fear within American political circles to be involved in humanitarian interventions causing almost a decade of inaction in Africa. Third, the gamble is too high for French President Sarkozy seeking re-election in 2012. He led the charge to Libya and cannot afford a military and political failure. It could have similar effects on approval rates for President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron.
The second option would be to sponsors Libyan rebels with weapons and basic training. First of all, Colonel Qaddafi is able to maintain his regime thanks to the weapons sold for decades by France, the UK, Spain, the US, and Italy. Second, the US used this strategy between 1979 and 1989 in Afghanistan. The CIA back in the days assisted the Talibans and Al-Qaeda in order to fight back the Red Army. The rest is history. For obvious reasons, re-calling 9/11, this is not a viable option and it could become political crisis domestically. However, it does not mean that secret services will abstain.
The third option, which seems to have been adopted, is to send military advisors to Libya. France and Italy promised along the UK to send military advisors to assist Libya’s rebels. France, Italy and the UK will be sending advisors to work with the Benghazi leadership. The question is: what are western governments expecting from this? Based on the information received from the ground, rebels are overpowered by Qaddafi’s forces. Such scenario is the safest of all the above and will not cost an election to the leadership. It will also be the way out for France, Italy, the UK and the US by delegating military strategy to the rebel elites.
As opposed to Iraq in 2003, the war in Libya has an ethical dimension to it: protection of civilians. However both military actions share a common variable: a military mission hiding a political agenda of regime change. The declaration last week by leaders Sarkozy, Obama, and Cameron, calling for Qaddafi resignation, may have been a strategic mistake and sending a wrong message throughout the Arab world. After one month of violence, regime change will most likely not occur without troops on the ground.
The use of force through heavy strategic bombings has not led to the optimal solution, two points should be underlined. First, EUFOR Libya should not be deployed without the green light of the UN. HR Ashton wanted to force EUFOR deployment to Misrata raising concerns within the UN. Thus, with the lesson of EUPOL Afghanistan, the EU has proven that it cannot provide assistance in time of war. The EU does not have the capabilities to deploy its experts and soldiers fulfilling their mandate and mission, while assuring their security. Second, after a month, organizing a major international conference including the UN, NATO, the EU, the Africa Union and the Arab League would send a message of unity and reinforce the centrality of multilateralism in finding a common position on the next step in Libya. Furthermore, by having the EU at the table, European powerhouses – France and the UK – would limit the damages done to the Union in the field of security and foreign affairs.
On a side note, I would
like to pay my respect to Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros. Both have been important in covering conflicts for decades all across the world and succeeded in their missions to bring the raw truth back home through powerful pictures and documentaries such as Restrepo and The Devil came on Horseback.
