The most interesting thing about the UN Security Council's Resolution 1973 is that it was passed at all. Both Russia and China have said explicitly that they do not support any kind of intervention in Libya, and each could have vetoed, and thus killed, the no-fly zone. But they didn't. Instead, they joined 3 others (Brazil, India and Germany) in abstaining, and the measure passed. But neither the resolution, nor the cease-fire declared by the Libyan government, will do much for the fortunes of the rebels, and they are the big losers in this sharp-elbows international battle.
Much of the world's media have been tracking the fast-moving events in Libya for many weeks. So powerful was the story that it could be displaced only by the catastrophe in Japan. But while the tsunami took its toll and nuclear reactors began to explode, Qaddafi's* forces have been systematically routing the rebels. Lacking supplies, training and coherent leadership, the rebels have been driven far to the east and out of the cities they had captured weeks ago.
The assumption has been that the margin of difference is air power, that were it not for Qaddafi's attack aircraft the rebels would win. But the rebels' other weaknesses will not be addressed merely by slowing or even stopping the government's pressure on them, and it will be very interesting to see if the rebels' battlefield situation improves during this cease-fire. It probably won't. Confined to a relatively small area, they may become something of a rump Eastern Libya under UN protection, but it now seems unlikely that they will prevail in the near term.
Since the rebellion began, the prevailing sentiment has been on the side of the rebels, but it was not translated into any action to assist them. As sympathetic as the United States government has been, it has also been reluctant to project any power in Lybia. Indeed, both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have spoken derisively about the ease with which many think a no-fly zone can be established and maintained, and General Mattis, the boss of Central Command, has been an even more outspoken opponent of using American assets in Libya.
We and our allies certainly have the resources to attack many selected targets, including airfields, formations of troops, rocket launchers and artillery. And in any case the establishment of any restrictive zone of operations must include the suppression of anti-aircraft sites. Most of this can be accomplished from the sea and air, using remotely piloted vehicles and precision-guided munitions. It is almost guaranteed that there will be some combat involving allied resources.
But the arrangement as it is now---a relatively small number of rebels cornered in a confined area---is more stable that the one several weeks ago, and, ironically, it is preferred by most of the parties parties. Russia and China are satisfied that there will be no allied ground involvement; Qaddafi has the upper hand militarily; and the governments involved in enforcing Resolution 1973 look like they are taking positive and meaningful action. But since none of this could have occurred without the passage of weeks, while the allies dickered and dithered and Qaddafi pounded the hell out of his adversaries, it all came at the expense of the rebels. For some, time doesn't heal all wounds---it causes them.
*There are numerous English transliterations of his name. He pronounces it "Kadaffi." In many dialects, it is "Qaddafi." In classic Arabic, it is "al-Gazzafi," which means something like "the driving force" or "the motivator."
No comments:
Post a Comment