Protesters in Liverpool, England, march against events in Libya.
Over the weekend, the military forces of several European nations along with those of the United States put to an end the advance of forces loyal to Muamar Gaddafi steadily marching toward the city of Benghazi. Operating under the auspices of a Security Council resolution, air and naval forces of several nations, but principally France, Britain and the United States, have begun systematically dismantling the military apparatus of the Libyan state. Now the question emerges, to what end shall this power be directed?
Instituting the “no fly” zone and extending measures to protect Libyan civilians, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 stands as justification for the air strikes and cruise missile attacks directed against the Libyan military. And so, we revisit the kind of war that the nations of the West are very good at: precision bombing and air supremacy. This will likely finish Gaddafi’s drive to restore his complete authority over the country. His forces have proven able to employ some semblance of tactics and gradually push back the poorly armed and ill-trained rebels. No more.
With the Libyan advance stopped and Benghazi beneath an aerial umbrella, the city’s some 650,000 inhabitants will likely be spared enormous suffering. The NATO strikes south of Benghazi shattered a column of tanks and artillery that well could have laid bloody siege to the city for days or more. Such force now cannot be assembled by Gaddafi without drawing the attention of cruise missile or smart bomb. A new phase is entered.
With intervention, the West needs to decide what future it wants for Libya. Certainly, Europe has no desire for more nation-building on its dime. No doubt, U.S. and European intelligence organizations and special forces could organize an effective local fighting force to take Tripoli and remove Gaddafi, but then what? Clearly it would be nice if Gaddafi got up and left, but who would take him? Perhaps it would have been more prudent to let the Libyan insurrection play itself out.
Russia, China, India, Germany and Brazil, the five countries abstaining on Resolution 1973 have essentially said as much. All warned against “the unintended consequences of armed intervention.” And that is the rub. If the hope was to restore a functioning Libyan state and bolster stability in the region, perhaps letting Gaddafi take his country back was the right thing to do, however odious and vile a prospect. But, this was the same country gradually re-entering the mainstream of the international community and worthy of hundreds of millions of euros in arms sales in recent years from France, Belgium and Italy — all NATO members.
Personally, I am disappointed that the U.S. has joined in the war-making against Libya. There is plenty our country could do, in supplying intelligence, logistical and humanitarian support, while leaving the bombing to others. But we have refused the advice of five wise and rising powers to partner with France, a country arming the Libyans weeks ago, and Britain, the once great world power that decided to ax what remained of its power-projection capability for the case of fiscal austerity last year. Once again we have reached into the statecraft toolbox in search of our hammer and teamed with the duo that Eisenhower chastised for the military misadventure at Suez in ’56. What may likely follow is stalemate.
Bring forth the UN resolution for partition of Libya.
Christopher Bronk is the Baker Institute fellow in information technology policy. He previously served as a career diplomat with the United States Department of State on assignments both overseas and in Washington, D.C.