The Current Situation in Libya
So, here is where we are:
- Rebel forces have been unable to hold the ground that they recently captured (perhaps traversed is a better term) and have retreated back to Adjadibya. Logistics play a major role in the problems of both Loyalist and rebel forces, because supply lines lengthen as either advances. The Loyalists seem to have somewhat better logistics, but they have more onerous requirements because of their heavy weaponry, and they’re suffering from airstrikes all along their lines. As many have suggested, this is a recipe for stalemate.
- The US and the UK (and probably France as well) are trying to break the stalemate through the deployment of CIA, SAS, and MI6 operatives. In addition to carrying out political work (vetting rebels, probing Loyalist forces for defectors), these operatives will be playing a military role in any rebel advance. SOF will analyze Loyalist positions, identify vulnerabilities, illuminate targets, and coordinate rebel attacks with airstrikes. This is the “Afghan Model,” and could be very effective against Loyalist forces. Variables include the intensity of air attacks, the number of SOF, and the quality of rebel forces. But yes, this does represent an escalation of UK/US/French involvement.
- The next big political and military problem seems to me to be Sirte. Rebels, assisted by air attacks, made absolutely no headway when they reached it last week. With Western SOF assistance they might have a better chance. Taking Sirte wouldn’t resolve logistical problems, but it might crack open the entire Loyalist defense and demoralize Gaddafi’s supporters. However, it appears from casual observation that the people of Sirte don’t feel that they need Western “protection” from the Gaddafi regime, and aren’t enthusiastic about the rebellion. This poses some very serious question for NATO (which is now in command) if and when they rebels seize the city. A bloody purge of Loyalists is not out of the question, and Western SOF may find themselves shifting very quickly between attack and restraint missions.
Altogether, I’d say that the situation is less hopeful than it was a few days ago. In my view, partition and Western escalation remain the only two plausible options (arming the rebels is unlikely to have a near term effect on their capabilities), and neither of those are particularly good outcomes.
OK, so what do you think of saying, well, NATO went just far enough beyond the UN mandate to stop the assault on Benghazi, but anything beyond this would amount to committing Western forces to an inchoate civil war in which it is not at all clear that our involvement would (a) improve the lot of Libyans (b) support the broader Arab Spring or (c) lead to any other acceptable outcomes, military or political? Would you see that as pragmatic-realist in the good (circumspect, internationalist) sense, or pragmatic-realist in the bad old (Westphalian, Kissingerian) sense?
I think we can safely say that the UN mandate (and that of the Arab League) has gone right down the old memory hole and we’re back to old-fashioned military adventurism.
I think we can safely say that the UN mandate (and that of the Arab League) has gone right down the old memory hole
I disagree. I think we can expect to see it trotted out again whenever it’s expedient, even as we flagrantly ignore it.
What Kvetch said. The UN Mandate and Arab League “support” are just sticks that the hawks will use to beat on the skeptics.
How about “arguments” to point out that the skeptics are “wrong”?
Yeah, it’s really evolved that way so far. I know, I know.
This time, the bombs-fulla-freedom are finally actually fulla-freedom.
This time, it will be different.
This time, we’re not just acting in our own interest and turning a blind eye to all of the other things we could be doing with these resources domestically or internationally.
This time, we’ll be limited by the rule of law domestically.
This time, there’s a clear endgame and we won’t get bogged down.
This time, there won’t be any blowback.
hi
The UN Mandate had enough leeway to justify the attacks on ground forces approaching Libya, although the current set of attacks probably goes beyond. The mandate itself, however, amounted to committing Western forces to an inchoate civil war, etc. I do think it’s too glib to say “down the memory hole” with regards to either the UN or the Arab League; the latter is obviously lying with regards to its understanding of the likely extent of Western intervention in Libya.
Its “understanding”? it’s statement was pretty clear: the Arab League supported a no-fly zone; they publicly condemned the bombings. Reading between the lines in Arabic is all well and good, but what they said remains what they said.
I would suggest that you apply the same skepticism towards the Arab League’s public stance as you would towards US/NATO; they were, by accounts I’ve read, represented in the talks that laid out the campaign, including ground attacks et al.
It isn’t surprising that the Arab League is lying about its commitment, but again there’s no reason to take that deception at face value.
In a not quite related point, let me express just how unfortunate it is that Juan Cole seems to have less healthy skepticism about this particular intervention than Eli fucking Lake.
Wait, so we’re supposed to be skeptical of what the Arab League says for public consumption, but NOT skeptical of what the Obama Administration says for public consumption? Because this Administration has such a great track record of truth-telling when it comes to secret deals with the powerful.
It’s a humanitarian intervention… that just happens to be in an oil-rich country the Middle East whose leader is not a close ally. No regime change is intended.
Wait, now it’s air attacks on ground forces on one side in a civil war. And we’d be really happy if regime change resulted from our actions, but we’re not actually going to try to create regime change. (Until of course, we do, because we HAVE NO OTHER PLAN FOR HOW THIS ENDS.)
Oh, of course, this is all completely sanctioned by the UN which is why it’s fine for the President to order aggressive action against the military of a country which poses no threat to us, so this is all by the book and the legalisms concerning prior congressional approval don’t count, because they’re quaint and anachronistic (like the Geneva Conventions were under Bush). But wait, apparently now they don’t count even if congress expressly disapproves, because being President is basically like being Emperor.
America (when the president of my choice is in power, fuck yeah!
“Wait, so we’re supposed to be skeptical of what the Arab League says for public consumption, but NOT skeptical of what the Obama Administration says for public consumption?”
Please come back when you’re interested in having an argument with someone who’s present, rather than someone who’s invisible.
There’s commitmente and then there’s commitment. I don’t see why we can’t simulatenously hope Gaddhafi loses, but confine our actual war aims to keeping him from destroying the rebellion altogether. If that means each side consolidates their positions and there is a de facto partition, then that’s still better than the alternative if the UNSC hadn’t acted.
Are both sides humming Lilly Marlene yet?
Underneath the streetlight, by the barracks door….
[...] particularly in light of evolving events, I think it’s important to qualify this argument by emphasizing that I’m describing an [...]
This is the “Afghan Model,”
I do not find this term reassuring.
In purely tactical terms Afgahnistan was amazing prior to Bush going ADHD and shifting his focus (and vital resources) to Iraq.
In purely tactical terms, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 was a brilliantly executed military operation, and we all saw how that ended for them.
Wasn’t it mostly amazing in the fact that plenty of warlords were open to getting paid massive sums of money to switch sides? While resistors were getting obliterated by daisy cutters and MOABs?
Partition seems to be the only real way to achieve a solution without a mass-killing– it’s been clear for a while now that we hoped that this would be akin to the initial push in Afghanistan- in which SOF and Air Power augmented the Northern Alliance in such a way that victory was relatively easy (regardless of ones views on the aftermath of said victory– I exempt this because its arguable that shifting American SOF and air power focus to Iraq prevented the decisive victory that could have otherwise been had at Tora Bora, again this is a relatively weak argument but it should be aired)– but that now a Kosovo or Iraq circa the 1990s solution is our best option with Western Powers playing a buffer role in the air (this would be something that France and the UK could do almost entirely post-cease fire).
Do many Libyans want partition?
Not their call. This is a humanitarian intervention. We will decide what’s good for them.
Same as it ever was
I don’t think that many Libyans want partition, nor do I think that NATO wants partition. Partition may be preferable to either a) victory by the other faction, or b) escalation on the part of NATO.
Am I correct in my understanding that the three possible outcomes are partition, Gaddafi wins outright or Gaddafi dies? Since there is no place for Gaddafi to go where he will not be subject to prosecution in the International Criminal Court it seems to me that this is a pretty poor corner to be painted into. What am I missing?
I’d prefer to see Gaddhafi gone, but if this ends up the same way the Korean war did (with far less loss of life), then that’s a win compared with the status quo ante, just as the Korean war was a win compared with Kim Il Sung controlling the entire peninsula.
How viable would East Libya be anyway? Should we call it Cyrenaica?
IN LIBYA EVERY THING WAS OK BUT THE EVILS ( EUROPE AND USA ) THEY DID NOT WANT PEACE IN MUSLIM WORLD ALREADY IN USA AND EUROPE THERE IS HUMAN VIOLATION BUT THEY CLOSE THEIR EYES.I STRONGLY TELL THEM DONT TEACH MUSLIMS WE KNOW BETTER WHAT WE WILL DO.
ACCORDING TO UN IT IS THE ORGANISATION OF THE ANTI MUSLIM NATIONS AND TAKEN ALL MEASURES AGAINST MUSLIMS.
l think gadaffi have to step down and stop that evil thing that he is doing.l known that JESUS will ask him question and God will judge him too
george bush
from ghana
ALL R STUPID ? OK UNDERSTAND
There is one thing iwill like to know.What is the work of Au(africa union)?can’t they solve africa problems?why do they allow the’babylons’ to solve our problems for us?If they cannot solve our problems then,the union should be desolve and stop wasting our resources.