Monday marked 100 days since the air campaign began in Libya. Resolution 1973 authorises ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians’. The resolution, however, specifically excludes a foreign occupation force of any form on Libyan territory.
The White House was always lukewarm, at best, to the prospect of international intervention in Libya and has taken a back seat in the operation. As yet the combination of rebel forces and NATO air strikes has failed to have much significant strategic impact. Indeed, the Gaddafi regime seems intent on playing the long game and out lasting the unlikely combination of NATO airpower and weak rebel forces.
Before it is too late we need to step back and urgently ask what our military strategy is, and ask exactly how are we going to successfully win this conflict?
Liberal Democrats should make no mistake: if this conflict develops into the long dirty stalemate which it appears it easily could, the repercussions will not be against Cameron’s war, or the Conservative’s war, but the public outcry will be against the Coalition’s war.
Nick Clegg backed it, our MPs voted for it and as Liberal Democrats we need to influence government policy on this issue and help find some solutions.
The disparate combination of airpower and largely ineffective rebel forces are unlikely to topple Gadhafi any time soon. I believe, the inability to fully integrate the largely separate but parallel air and ground campaigns is a fundamental strategic flaw which is severely curtailing the ability to win this conflict.
The strategic phrase, ‘No General ever gave his surrender to an aeroplane’, comes to mind. Consistently, since the first Gulf War, we have over rated the effectiveness of airpower as a means of winning complex wars. We have been blinded by the science of the “shock and awe”. Precision surgical strikes from the skies claim to do the dirty work without endangering our soldier’s lives and yet in reality they never live up to the billing.
Last week was a watershed moment. Three very important things happened: Firstly, it brought a change of heart from the Head of the Arab League as reported in the Guardian. Secondly, innocent children were also killed by coalition air strikes in the first serious targeting mistake and lastly, our own top commanders issued strongly worded criticisms concerning the UK’s own lack of military capabilities to sustain the conflict.
One hundred days of fighting have produced stalemate in many areas of Eastern Libya and the rebels have not had much more by way of success in other areas. Gaddafi’s forces have proved more resilient than expected, playing every urban guerrilla warfare dirty trick in the book. The rebels remain a disorganised chaotic bunch, ill equipped, and tragically pinned down against the better equipped and longer strategic reach of the Libyan army and accompanying African mercenaries.
Now the west has started this conflict, we carry a duty of care to the Libyan people. Leaving Gaddafi in power is not an option. NATO and the coalition are stuck between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand there is a very restrictive UN resolution combined with a fragile international coalition and a need to get the job done fast. One the other hand, there is a mad tyrant who refuses to recognise that it is time to go, and a frozen situation on the ground with a complex urban guerrilla war fought against superior weaponry against a ragtag army operating on bravery alone.
All the signs are for continued and future military stagnation and political stalemate from the international community. We can’t get the job finished and we can’t leave till we do.
John Russell is a former Lewisham Liberal Democrat councillor and has a Masters Degree in International Politics and Strategic Studies from the University of Wales Aberystwyth.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ludlow and Clee councillors call for rethink on Ludlow May Fair cancellation
Christopher Eccleston returns as the Ninth Doctor
Humphrey Lyttelton and his Band: Bad Penny Blues
Another day, another Tory lobbying controversy
Thank you for your huge election efforts
The Nature of Empire - Decolonising the D'Arcy Thompson Zoology Museum
The cynical miserablism of the left, and why it can't win yet
Paul Fisher
Ruth Bright
Brad Barrows
Katharine Pindar
Peter Watson
10 Comments
Three points:
1) Who gave the UN permission to decide matters of war and peace? It is not the voters, that’s for sure. The UN is about the least democratic organisation I can think of. Why do we somehow see war as OK only when it has the UN seal of approval? The UN has much to answer for on Libya.
2) There should have been no intervention in Libya – simple as that. If the Arab League think that an NFZ to allow a cooling off period is a good idea, they are more than free, as far as I am concerned, to use their fine air-forces to enforce one.
3) ‘Gaddafi’s forces have proved more resilient than expected.’ Why are people so reluctant to suggest that one reason for this might be that he appears at least to have a very real level of political support in Libya, whatever the rights and wrongs of that.
I agreed with much of this article until I got to “leaving Gadaffi in power is not an option”. Of course no lliberal wants Gadaffi in power, but what we are facing yet again, as in Afghanistan and Iraq is the limits of western power. We are repeating the same mistake over and over again and we do not seem to learn from our mistakes.
As far as Libya is concerned we may get lucky. The strategy appears to be to kill Gadaffi, and that may happen. There may also be a mutiny that overthrows Gadaffi. The danger then would be that we think we can still go and do this kind of thing. However as with Iraq that may not be the end of the matter.
ONe thing I would like would be if the decision makers actually knew something about the country they are invading. What I am unclear about is what follows Gadaffi, who the likely leaders will be, will they be Al Qaeda supporters for example?
It is intolerable to leave Gadaffi in power, maybe in a divided country, but no more so than negotiating a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. As for fighting a costly war with many casualities over many months, well that is an unattractive option as well.
When China did terrible things to the Tibetans, all we could do is stand and watch, because we all agree that attacking China is a daft thing to do. Once we recognise the limits of out power we have to accept that like with China there are things not worth trying. We should have recognised that with Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we have to recognise that with Libya as well.
What we can do more effectively to protest against human rights abuses is not to sell arms to countries like Libya for example, which we had been doing.
Sorry, replace “invading” with “attacking”
Is everyone reading different sources to me? My understanding is that Gaddafi is basically besieged in Tripoli, running out of oil, morale and friends, and the rebel forces are advancing steadily. It is imperative that everything possible is done to avoid further civilian deaths, but apart from that I don’t think NATO are doing bad. Please could someone provide sources for all this doom and gloom and “stalemate”, as it doesn’t seem to chime with the coverage in The Economist and Al-Jazeera.
Hi first of all I wanted to say that this is the first of two articles on Libya.
The second coming tomorrow will ask where now and suggest some ways the international coalition can help to ensure that this war is brought to a quick and decisive conclusion.
@ Geoff, I want to be clear I am not in favour of targeting Gaddafi, as will be made clear tomorrow. However, it is very unlikely, now we are were we are, that any form of negotiations will produce results. If he genuinely wants to negotiate then we must negotiate. 1973 does not allow or sanction his overthrow. NATO has made it clear that enforcement action will stop if his violence has ceased.
What happens if and when there is a post Gaddafi Libya is a very interesting question.
I completely agree with you about the international arms trade.
@ Duncan thank you for your comments.
1 The United Nations was established in 1945 following the failures of the League of Nations to prevent World War II with the express purpose of preventing a 3rd world war. Every recognised nation in the world is a member. Yes there is much wrong with the UN, much of it is a result of the international political anarchic order and the Security Council veto. Yes there is much that needs reform, but the UN is the product of the system not the other way around. The UN does have a mandate and it does a lot of good work.
2 I believe there are grounds for intervening in Libya but it must be done properly. I would like to see a UN standing army in place so that the UN has the power to act and does not simply reflect the willingness of those with power.
3 Gaddafi does have some support but he is basically a tyrant who rules through fear and repression.
@ Bolivia I think you are wrong on this some progress is being made but it is not decisive military progress. The conflict is very much a stalemate in most parts of Libya. More on this tomorrow with sources provided.
It’s unlikely, but not impossible, that this Libya conflict will be resolved through military means. Most likely is a political settlement – I just hope it won’t take 10 years for the political situation evolves for this to be a possibilty, as has happened in Afghanistan.
As John suggests, and as troubled me at the time, there may have been a clear need for some form of action (and we may disagree on whether we should have intervened), but its not clear that we ever knew what our exit strategy will be. And that is the recipe for a potential disaster.
“Before it is too late we need to step back and urgently ask what our military strategy is, and ask exactly how are we going to successfully win this conflict? ”
This is not our conflict to win the resolution is aimed at protecting civilians. If Gaddafi stops targetting them we have no business there.
” I believe, the inability to fully integrate the largely separate but parallel air and ground campaigns is a fundamental strategic flaw which is severely curtailing the ability to win this conflict.”
Again we are not there to coordinate, in fact I believe we have already stretched the resolution to breaking point, we are there to stop civilians being hurt.
“Consistently, since the first Gulf War, we have over rated the effectiveness of airpower as a means of winning complex wars. We have been blinded by the science of the “shock and awe”. Precision surgical strikes from the skies claim to do the dirty work without endangering our soldier’s lives and yet in reality they never live up to the billing. ”
Shock and awe was the phrase used to describe the effect of the combined air and land and air assault of the second Gulf War. In 2003 the long air war of the ’91 conflict was deliberately shunned by planners for a more combined approach.
“Leaving Gaddafi in power is not an option. ”
Show me where regime change was on the resolution. Head down that route and the I believe the conflict would be more clearly illegal than Iraq where clever solicitors at least had a prior resolution to base their argument on (whatever one may think of this argument).
Time for a second resolution, ask Blair how that is likely to go……
@Steve: Thanks for your comments. Much of this is in the next article…
On our conflict…perhaps not the best word; but the sanctioned conflict of which our military personnel are involved in and our party agreed to in government…
If Gaddafi stops targeting yes we have to leave and yes we are there to protect civilians. This is very clear in the 1973.
A long and bloody conflict which I think is possible; is not a means of protecting civilians.
I think the resolution, as written is difficult to implement, militarily. I think we need a new and stronger one. I don’t think the rebels and NATO air power will win this conflict any time soon the way things are setup on the ground.
A second resolution will be very hard to achieve.
We have a problem…
@ Alex I think a political solution is unlikely anytime soon. Yes an exit strategy is very important.
@ Bolivia. France has confirmed it dropped arms to Berber tribal fighters in the mountains south-west of the capital, Tripoli…France is said to have been concerned at the stalemate in the Libyan conflict that started in February.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13970412
Or an alternative analysis of the situation.