**[](/sites/default/files/uploads/2011/03/Picture-18.gif)
**
“Dynamite in the hands of a child is not more dangerous than a strong policy weakly carried out.” – Sir Winston Churchill
The above words of wisdom by the great British statesman, Sir Winston Churchill, encapsulate the latest NATO policy towards Libya’s obstreperous leader Muammar Gaddafi. At a conference in London on Tuesday, top diplomats and leaders from four dozen countries and international organizations announced their endgame now is regime change in Libya. Despite the fact the United Nations (UN) resolution on the Libyan crisis gives them no mandate to do so, all the conference participants agreed Gaddafi had to go and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would keep up the military pressure until he did so.
“One thing is quite clear and has to be made very clear to Gaddafi: His time is over. He must go,” said German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle in a statement.
The one aspect of this seemingly strong policy of regime change, backed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who also attended the meeting, that vividly stands out concerns the details on how Gaddafi’s ouster is to come about. In short, there weren’t any. And this policy confusion spells big trouble for America and the coalition.
Firstly, Westerwelle’s statement appears redundant on more than just one level. With NATO warplanes roaming Libya’s skies, dropping bombs on his troops, and cruise missiles hitting targets in his stronghold of Tripoli for almost two weeks now, it must already be obvious to Gaddafi that NATO and other states want him gone. Moreover, President Obama himself had said recently he had to step down. But words and international condemnations, as the world already knows, have no effect on Gaddafi.
Clinton’s contribution on how to end Gaddafi’s days in power was just as mild. She said in London a “unified front of political and diplomatic pressure” would help make it clear to Gaddafi “he must go.”
“All of us must continue the pressure on and deepen the isolation of the Qaddafi regime,” she stated in address to leaders at the conference.
But Clinton’s measures of straw will be as equally ineffectual on Gaddafi as international condemnations and calls to leave. The secretary of state appears to have forgotten Gaddafi already faced international isolation and embargos in the past for his terrorist activities, and his former pariah status did not change his behaviour one whit. Under this previous “unified front of political and diplomatic pressure,” Gaddafi even started a weapons of mass destruction program, which only ended with George Bush’s strong Iraq invasion policy. Fearing he would be next, Gaddafi then decided to start adhering to some norms of international behavior.
NATO’s hopes for an insurrection or defections from within the Gaddafi camp are also not realistic. A deal with turncoats is something the coalition is currently exploring, according to the New York Times. The United States and other countries, the paper reports, continue to “reach out” to Gaddafi loyalists “to split off or negotiate the Libyan leader’s ouster.” In response, the coalition has received “messages”, prompting a State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, to say there are “people very close to Gaddafi” who are “beginning to think about the future.”
But the official admitted: “They [the messages] don’t amount at this stage, to the best of my knowledge, to a serious effort of exploring negotiation.”
And they probably never will. The conflict in Libya is largely a tribal war. It is highly unlikely Gaddafi’s tribe and its allies in Western Libya would throw him over. With Gaddafi’s ouster, they know their privileged position in Libyan society, and possibly even their safety, would be threatened by opposing rebel tribes looking for revenge. There may be some disgruntled individuals in the loyalist camp, but the Gaddafi tribe and its supporters will remain loyal to their leader.
Almost in contempt of the London announcement that he must vacate his throne, Gaddafi had his troops launch a military offensive on Tuesday that drove the rebels away from his tribal stronghold and birthplace of Sirte. In comparison with Gaddafi’s troops, the rebels lack proper weapons and are very under trained, many just civilians with a rifle in their hands. The success of their most recent advance was owed to NATO air strikes and not to their fighting abilities, as one rebel fighter told the Times they had faced almost no resistance.
The decision to arm the rebels is also a difficult one, which is probably why it was not even discussed at the London conference. While Clinton says the UN resolution on Libya allows weapons to be sent to the rebels, the United States is hesitating to do so. The problem is NATO is not really sure who the rebels are, and there have been reports of al Qaeda and other radical Muslim fighters in the rebel ranks.
Western countries do not want to make the mistake they made in Afghanistan of giving radical Islamists modern weapons that could later be turned against them. Besides, the training of a rebel force capable of facing Gaddafi’s troops would also take months, but the United States and the other countries present in London want him gone immediately.
But Gaddafi remaining in the seat of power, while he is bombed and faced with calls for his ouster, is also very dangerous. He will try to seek revenge, as he has already promised to do, on those countries supporting the rebels. This revenge will most likely take the form of terrorist attacks, like the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that cost 259 people their lives.
And attacks executed by Libyan agents may not pose the only terrorist threat to Western countries. As a result of the American and NATO air attacks, Gaddafi stated he is going to make an alliance with al Qaeda. Whether this is possible remains questionable because of his previous persecution of Osama bin Laden’s organization. But there are other Islamist terrorist groups that would help carry out Gaddafi’s revenge plans. A Western Libya left under his control could become a terrorist state like Pakistan, but one now on Europe’s doorstep.
It appears Gaddafi has a lot of money, so he can continue to hire mercenaries to replace any losses. His recent threat to arm a million people in Western Libya also indicates his arsenals are full, so the UN arms embargo will have little effect. This could translate into a prolonged conflict that will be very expensive, and exhausting, for Western countries, disrupt the oil supply and regional stability, and cause extensive loss of human life. An Israeli expert on Libya, Yehudit Ronen, has already predicted a long war that will leave Libya badly disfigured.
But saving Libyan lives is the reason the UN issued Resolution 1973 in the first place. It is also the reason President Obama gave for American intervention. Obama believes American air strikes have accomplished this purpose and is proud of his decision to have ordered them. A long war, however, with many casualties and extensive destruction will, tragically enough, negate both the UN’s and the president’s supposed noble and humanitarian endeavors.
Leave a Reply