The UN-supported intervention in Libya has raised a lot of questions about the strategy of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the other coalition partners. The strong-worded resolution came together in a hurry, with even the staunchest supporters appearing surprised by its eventual passing. This week’s debate over command and control of the operation perfectly highlights the lack of planning by the coalition partners, and it is unclear what they want to achieve. Muammar Gaddafi is a target, but not really. They want him out, but don’t want to target him directly. The problem is, even if they . . .
→ read more
|
|
|
|
Updated Below Over at the National Interest, Paul Pillar raises one of the issues with America’s current intervention in Libya that has not been discussed nearly enough: the effect on terrorism. When terrorism has been brought up in the context of Libya it is usually framed around Qaddafi’s past support for it—particularly the 1988 bombing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland—and the possibility that he will return to supporting terrorism in the wake of the West’s attempt to depose him. There is also the loss of Libyan cooperation in the War on Terror that came after Qaddafi traded the . . . Two items from this week’s edition of the Weekly Standard are striking—not so much for what they argue but for the weak cases they make. The articles, by Max Boot and Thomas Donnelly and Gary Schmitt, respectively, argue for regime change in Libya and raising the defense budget because of the current operations taking place in Libya. Boot is up first with a call for deposing Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi. He asserts that displays of American military power will most likely “shock and awe” Qaddafi’s supporters into submission and surrender. Boot believes the regime change operation should be modeled . . . This week the proponents of a no-fly zone over Libya got their wish, and then some. Thursday’s Security Council resolution approves of a no-fly zone and further use of power to protect the civilian population. The resolution is quite remarkable by the fact that it is so broad, and this prompts the obvious question: What happened in the White House? For weeks the Obama administration dithered on Libya, showing very little willingness to take drastic measures. How do we explain this sudden shift from deep ambivalence to promoting a resolution that authorizes “all necessary measures” to protect the population? . . . The opposition forces appear to be on the defensive in Libya. Muammar Gaddafi has managed to turn the tide and what seemed likely a week ago – another dictator overthrown in the Middle East – is now highly uncertain. There is genuine fear that Gaddafi will prevail against the opposition and take back control of the country – at least enough of it to stay in power. In front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made the blunt assessment that the Libyan government’s military might is stronger than had been described, . . . The conflict in Libya continues to unfold, evolving day by day. Although the situation is fluid and unpredictable, the chorus of voices calling for the U.S. and Europe to intervene grow louder by the day. Indeed, the United States and United Kingdom are seriously contemplating implementation of a no-fly zone. Hans-Inge Langø provided an intelligent look at implementing a no-fly zone last week through the lens of the responsibility to protect doctrine. David Cloud of the Los Angeles Times provides a further examination of the logistics involved in implementing a no-fly zone. The narrative in popular commentary: a no-fly zone over Libya is possible, but very complex, and the efficacy is questionable. . . . Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has finally lost it. Following days of massive protests in several large Libyan cities, the old dictator decided to strike back using African mercenaries and the Libyan air force. We do not know the true extent of the carnage in Libya, and the latest speech from Gaddafi Tuesday evening promises no lessening of violence. Unless the military turns on their leader, this will not end well. The rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya represents the first true test of the international community following the recent upheavals in the Middle East. While we saw some violence in both Egypt . . . |
|
|
Copyright © 2013 Hegemonic Obsessions - All Rights Reserved |
|
