Indecision Hands Libya Back to Kadafi

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March15, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

              Lacking trust in Libyan rebels, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ran out the clock, ceding power back to 68-year-old Libyan President Moammar Kadaf.  While there’s no love lost between the U.S. and Libya, especially after the Dec. 21, 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, U.S. officials see little upside in saving Libyan rebels against Kadafi’s relentless assault.  Slowly, but surely, Kadafi’s forces are regaining control of Eastern Libya, massacring rebels in the process.  Meeting in Paris March 13, Clinton, French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, kicked around a “no fly zone” but, in the end, couldn’t figure out whether the new regime would be more pro-Western or humanitarian than the one its was replacing.  Behind closed doors, the French Prime Minister pushed hard for a “no-fly zone” but expected the U.S. to do the heavy lifting.

            Military experts know that implementing a “no-fly zone” is essentially an act of war that would lead to a targeted bombing campaign.  “They don’t have the arms, but they have the will to fight,” said Lt. Col. Mohammed Saber, who defected from Kadafi’s army and joined the opposition.  Kadafi’s forces have been storming back, seizing more territory lost to rebels in Eastern Libya, including retaking the seaside town of Zwara, only 30 miles from the Tunisian border.  When meeting in Paris, Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy received military briefings confirming U.S. National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s fear that the rebels could not defeat Kadafi’s forces without a concerted allied military response.  Most experts believe the U.S. could easily topple Kadafi.  They just don’t know what kind of government or type of infrastructure would be needed for national building.

               Since Oct. 6, 2001, the U.S. has been bogged down in Afghanistan, giving a big pregnant pause to the idea of military intervention.  With around 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, there’s no longer the personnel to launch a new military adventure unless  primarily by airpower.  Kadafi wasted no time with his assault on rebel positions along Libya’s Easter Mediterranean coast.  He’s continuing his assault on Ajdabiya, having recaptured Zwara.  Once Kadafi takes Ajadbiya, he’s not going to waste time taking back Libya’s second largest city of Benghazi, currently militants’ main stronghold.  “There are only two possibilities:  Surrender or run away,” Kadafi warned rebels.  Opposition forces know that surrender is tantamount to death as Kadafi purges the ranks of traitors and subversives.  Kadafi rejected any comparisons between himself Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali

            Kadafi’s strategy involves using his superior airpower to relentlessly attack rebel positions.  Without air support from the U.S. or the EU, Libya’s rebels can’t last, already showing signs of attrition.  Faced with more government attacks, the rebels are beginning to crack.  “God willing, no, no, no, they will not reach Ajdabiya,” said rebel spokesman Ahmed al-Zwei, who’s trying with other rebels to hold the line on Ajdabiya’s west gate.  Given the rebel losses, the U.S. is getting cold feet starting an uncertain military adventure that could have disastrous political consequences to President Barack Obama.  Whether or not the U.S. and EU get U.N. Security Council approval, the mission of taking Libya without a massive show of force becomes more uncertain.  Western powers know that Kadafi won’t go quietly requiring the allies to make a full military commitment.

            Libya’s rebels lack the organization and coherent political ideology to reassure Western powers that they’d do a better job of managing Kadafi’s repressive North African Nation.  When Hillary tries to weigh out U.S. military intervention, she sees parallels with Iraq, where former President George W. Bush argued that Iraq—and the region—would be better off without Saddam Hussein.  Bush ignored the advice of his Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to retain Saddam to prevent a power vacuum in Iraq, unleashing the evil genie of Islamic terrorism and ethnic civil war.  Like Kadafi in Libya, Saddam, too, ruled Iraq with an iron fist, preventing radical elements from undermining the country.  Once toppled, Iraq became a free-for-all because of a failure to work with Saddam’s elite Republican Guard to impose military rule until a civilian government could be installed.

             Showing caution in Libya, the White House sees no signs among rebels that there’s a coherent pro-American partnership on the horizon.  Given the experience in Iraq, the White House is gun-shy for more military intervention where toppling Kadafi could open up a new can of worms.  Sitting on the fence, Obama has appeared indecisive, especially to traditional allies, like France, looking to the U.S. to perform the heavy lifting implementing a “no-fly zone” or targeted bombing.  “If we had used military force last week to neutralized some airstrips and the several dozen planes that they have, perhaps the reversal taking place to the detriment of the opposition wouldn’t have happened,” said French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe.  While it’s still not too late to support the Libyan rebels and topple Kadafi, there’s growing doubts about whether the U.S. would be better off without Kadafi.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.