Ceasefire Is Victory for Gaddafi
UN-authorized strikes against Gaddafi’s military forces began on March 19 as the rebels were on the edge of defeat, a position Gaddafi was in not long before. The West has apparently decided that its mission is not regime change, but a ceasefire that would leave Gaddafi in power. Survival would be a victory for the Libyan dictator, and leave him in an unhinged state to plot his revenge against the rebels and those who backed them by exploiting the limits of the UN engagement.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said: “It isn’t about seeing him go.” Vice Admiral William Gortney said the objective is to “deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people” and French President Sarkozy said the “door to diplomacy will reopen when the fighting will stop.”
Sarkozy implied a desire to see regime change, saying the intervention sought to “allow the Libyan people to choose their own destiny,” but the military action is designed to end hostilities — not Gaddafi’s reign. The AP reports that the U.S. hopes the intervention will indirectly bring about his end, stating: “Other top U.S. officials have stressed that a weakened and isolated Gaddafi could be ripe for a coup.”
This is precisely the thinking that left Saddam Hussein in power during the Gulf War, leading to a prolonged military engagement. Like Saddam, Gaddafi will continue to slaughter innocents and act aggressively. He has already said he will replace departing Western businesses with those from China and India so he will not be economically strangled.
It would be a mistake to assume that a ceasefire would end the conflict. The rebels will never surrender their goal of liberating all of Libya, and Gaddafi will never settle for anything less than retaking the entire country. These goals are not reconcilable. Unless the West imposes a ceasefire on the rebels as well, their operations will continue — it is inevitable that portions of regime-controlled territory will be the scene of uprisings and brutal crackdowns. The coalition will then need to choose: protect the rebels as they move forward to support the uprisings; limit military operations to only certain geographic areas and stay out of such battles; or force the rebels to cease attacks.
It is likewise certain that Gaddafi will use other means to wage war on the rebels, such as by sending in assassins and sabotage teams. The bounty on the head of the leader of the Libyan Transitional Council remains. Gaddafi will also be able to take revenge against rebel sympathizers in the territory he holds during a ceasefire. A “no drive zone” can’t cover the whole country, and his thugs can easily travel in civilian vehicles to eliminate their targets. An unconventional war will continue.
Gaddafi will continue to build up his forces unless a long-term blockade is enforced. The Syrian government is thought to have provided him with over two dozen pilots to help turn the tide, and there are accounts of Hezbollah fighters joining his forces. Military flights from Algeria and Belarus are believed by the rebels to have provided shipments of arms that reversed their gains. Gaddafi can agree to a ceasefire, and arm himself for the day that he chooses to break it.
Richard Fernandez made the point that the rebel forces will not control the oil resources, making self-governance in an autonomous area very difficult. Instability like this opens the door to outside influence, including al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic militants. A large amount of the foreign fighters in Iraq were Libyans: over 60 percent of these came from Derna and 24 percent came from Benghazi, the capital of the opposition. One of the debates about the intervention was whether it was better to have Gaddafi or a radical Islamic opponent in power if one should arise. Under a ceasefire, we could have both.
We must learn the lessons from our dealings with Iraq. Hussein moved into Kuwait because he did not fear action from the Bush I. When we stopped short of regime change, we did this to maintain good standing in the eyes of the world. We left a problem child in place that eventually had to be dealt with anyway. No amount of adoration from other nations kept us from having to continue policing Saddam.
But once it was determined that regime change was a worthy goal, an ultimatum was issued, giving Saddam a choice. He chose poorly. Our firm stance and decision to act in Iraq paid rewards in Libya at that time. Today, a firm stance in Libya may reap benefits in other problem nations. To do less is to condemn us to years of dealing with this madman.
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-fly-zone-is-not-our-big-stick.html
The other issue is that we can’t outsource Congress’ function of declaring war to the UN Security Council.
http://samschaos.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-obamaland-un-security-council.html
why then hasn’t Obama made it one of his priorities to defend those in Behran where our 5th fleet is based and to protect our more important interest, by going in with GB, France to thwart Lybia’s leader is nothing more than Ms. Hillary drive this bus into a lengthy war that in the end will result with Boots on the ground…..if you’ve been following politics for any length of time you would know that when a Democrat says otherwise expect the opposite equivalent to happen like Boots on the ground especially if France or GB decide in the immediate future or within a few weeks that Boots on the ground is the only way to drive this madman out from the trenches just as he didi when Regan bombed his Military flyovers and bombing of his own people back then. and when Boots hit the ground from anyone of our allies you can rest assured that our own Military will be forced to offer up or order our Soldiers Boots to hit the ground as well I’ll bet the farm on it !!!
We had no business wasting US resources in Gulf War I to begin with. Why? Because there never were any good guys on either side of that fight. If they insist on robbing from each other and killing each other, we should hold our noses and stay out of the way until such time as they learn on their own to behave like human beings (which would take a miracle and is not in our power to bestow).
We should never have made any alliances with Kuwait, the KSA, or any Muslim country or power. They have never been our friends, and they can never be our friends as long as they are predominantly Muslim.
There are so many things wrong with the US blundering into Libya, I hardly know where to begin. Suffice it to say that in the final analysis, and as a conservative, I cannot decry the intransigence of political Islam on the one hand, and expect classically liberal democracy in a country like Libya via its unspecified ‘rebels’ on the other. That kind of thinking is at best feckless, at worst schizophrenic.
As the article addresses, Khaddafi will simply find other means to do what he was going to do anyway, only now filled with revenge on his multinational oppressors. This will then be used as excuse to meddle further military for the rebels, i.e., mission creep. As in Serbia, the result will be the typical standoff favored by progressives… neither side having enough power to finish off the other, which is congruent with progressive equality of outcomes such that no conflict is ever finalized.
Five years from now, expect to still see the US military performing operations in Libya. I guess with the unholy alliance of neoconservatives and the left, this country will never learn.
Oh, but we didn’t “blunder!” This mission was approved by all the great minds in the “international community” as represented by the United Nations! We know that only the United Nations has the authority to authorize things like this. So it must be ok. Right?
Seriously, I agree with your assessment. Gaddafi is a thoroughly dangerous man. We’ve opened the ball now, and if we don’t finish him off or at least remove him from power he’ll be murdering Westerners for the next decade or more. Did anyone think of that before they started dropping bombs? What’s the end game here?
I disagree, Charles. At worst, it’s treason.
“The world is making a mistake if it thinks Gaddafi will be defanged and humbled by the intervention. He was known as a leading sponsor of terrorism in the 1980s, and though secular himself, he and his media outlets spout jihadist rhetoric. He will be reckless and unpredictable; his insanity appeared to escalate as the uprising progressed. He has threatened to attack air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean and ally with al-Qaeda to declare a jihad against the West if it intervened. It is simply bad strategy to gamble that Gaddafi will forgive his enemies, not seek revenge, and think with a stable mind after a ceasefire.”
All I know is, that at the end of the day, Gaddafi had better be dead after all of our bombing. If this guy somehow manages to survive, he will undoubtedly unleash some form of terrorism against the United States or Europe. Don’t believe me? Try convincing the families of the Lockerbie bombing that Gaddafi isn’t a state sponsor of terrorism.
And, by the way, has anybody bothered to secure Gaddafi’s stockpile of mustard gas chemical munitions? You know, that highly toxic stuff that could be used to kill a lot of his own people, not to mention could be used by terrorists for acts of terrorism against the west? You know that stuff? Please tell me I’m not the only one thinking about this.
Gotta agree. We limit our goals, Gaddafi survives, we suffer through another period in which a wacky dictator jerks everyone around while the UN dithers, and in ten years we have another war to finish him off. If you believe everything you read about Gaddafi, he’s got the hook up with a lot of terrorist organizations. I have a feeling he’ll use them to good effect before someone (the US?) gets fed up and removes him. I think he’s much more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. Get rid of him now, please.
A ceasefire is a victory for Ghadaffi, and the end result will be a victory for Hamas. It might have a different name than ‘Hamas”, but, it shall be no different in scope and purpose.
Obumbles is ultimately aiding Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
“…America’s passivity while Libyans were being slaughtered confirmed the negative image of the U.S. in the region.”
I see it as the other way around and sideways as well; the negative image of the U.S. precedes any action by the U.S.
It’s worse than damned if you do and damned if you don’t – we’re just damned. Muslims don’t like us because we are the reminder for them that the middle east is the mud flaps of the world.
Who are the rebels and how will their victgory help the interests of the US? Shouldn’t that have been defined to the congress for approval rather than the UN. Just how does the UN represent the American people over the congress under our constitution.
Dealing with either “democrat muslims” or Barrack Obama himself, you can rest assured their ‘word’ means nothing.
Destruction of the Western civilization is their ultimate goal.
Two things. First, you call Gaddafi deranged. He appears to be behaving like any other tyrant. Unless you have an inside line to his psychiatrist, I believe he is just your average evil narcissist.
Secondly, you mention that our policy seems to be to create a ceasefire, not to win the war. The last time America had a ‘win the war’ policy was 1945.
What deal did DaOne, and Clinton make with the Muslim brotherhood to create a NFZ in Libya through the UN?
Why support the other group of crazy moon god worshipers that wants to overthrow Gaddafi? Where is Congress to support the Constitution of these United States?
Screw the UN!
“The core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words…” President Obama about Libya at a press conference in Chile today.
So, by my reckoning, England and France and Mexico and Canada (with Germany and Russia abstaining) should have done an intervention to prevent a “potential humanitarian crisis” after the first battle of Bull Run between the states in 1861? Cool, Lincoln would have served a second term, Jefferson Davis would have retired in office with no Sherman’s march to the sea, and slavery might have been ended peacefully fifty years down the road. To bad Lord Palmerston, the aged yet highly astute British Prime Minister at the time, didn’t have his Obama’s Angels to guide foreign policy. Bet you Kadafi is still alive and kicking ten years from now, just like Sadam was during that no fly zone era.
“The core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community, almost unanimously, says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words…” President Obama about Libya at a press conference in Chile today.
So, by my reckoning, England and France and Mexico and Canada (with Germany and Russia abstaining) should have done an intervention to prevent a “potential humanitarian crisis” after the first battle of Bull Run between the states in 1861? Cool, Lincoln would have served a second term, Jefferson Davis would have retired in office with no Sherman’s march to the sea, and slavery might have been ended peacefully fifty years down the road, circa 1910. To bad Lord Palmerston, the aged yet highly astute British Prime Minister at the time, didn’t have his Obama’s Angels–Hillary, Susan, and Stephanie– to guide foreign policy. Bet you Kadafi is still alive and kicking ten years from now, just like Sadam was during the Iraq no fly zone era.