Not really facing any alternative, Libya announced a cease-fire after the U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force against their armed forces:
The announcement came after the Security Council on Thursday evening authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya, paving the way for air and naval attacks against Gaddafi’s forces as he vowed to level Benghazi, the rebel’s main stronghold and Libya’s second-largest city.
But let there be no doubt that a cease-fire is not the true aim of this resolution. While everyone is pretending that this is about protecting the “democrats” of Benghazi, or innocent civilians, the truth is that the aim is regime change.
François Baroin, a French government spokesman, had told RTL radio that airstrikes would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, after the United Nations resolution late Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to impose a no-flight zone.
But he insisted the military action “is not an occupation of Libyan territory.” Rather, it was designed to protect the Libyan people and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime.”
Let’s make sure we’re clear about this. The language of the resolution lifts the arms embargo (for the rebels) and prohibits foreign ground troops.
It authorises UN member states “to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”
So, what we have is a commitment to overthrow the Gaddafi regime, notwithstanding any cease-fire on their part, through the arming of the opposition which was on its last legs and within weeks of being crushed. To do this, we are not allowed to insert occupying troops, however you want to interpret that. But the rebels can expect foreign air forces to join them in battle.
It’s all an elaborate obfuscation. Look at this:
Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, which had supported the idea of a no-flight zone, told Reuters on Friday: “‘The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy.”
And this:
Lebanon’s U.N. ambassador, Nawaf Salam, provided no details on what role Arab countries would play in the military operation, saying that participants would make their own announcements. But he insisted that “there would be no forces on the ground in any form or in any part of Libya.”
And this:
British Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would judge Col Gaddafi “by his actions not his words” after Libya said it was declaring a ceasefire to comply with the resolution.
“What is absolutely clear is the UN Security Council resolution said he must stop what he is doing, brutalising his people. If not, all necessary measures can follow to make him stop,” he told the BBC.
“That is what we agreed last night, that is what we are preparing for and we’ll judge him by what he does.”
They are trying to convince us that this is all about protecting civilians and that Libya’s sovereignty will be respected, but, again, the goal is regime change.
“There is no justification for [Gaddafi’s] continued leadership now,” Ambassador Susan E. Rice said after casting the U.S. vote in favor of the resolution. Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — all of whom expressed reservations about the move — abstained.
Obviously, I am conflicted about this. I would like to see Gaddafi driven from power. I definitely do not want to see him massacre the Libyan opposition. But I also do not want to get involved in a civil war in Libya, especially on the weaker side, and I don’t want to cause a massive amount of bloodshed by arming a disorganized, ill-led opposition and giving them just enough power to fight but not enough power to win. And I don’t want to occupy Libya or take responsibility for the governance of their country. So, difficult choices, indeed.
Obama has not yet authorized the use of our forces in or over Libya, and I am grateful to see the French and British taking the lead-role. That is one of the things I have been insistent about, that European powers take on the risks, costs, and responsibilities of any military action. While there will be some angst domestically about seeing other powers usurp our traditional role as the U.N.’s enforcer, power sharing is key if the United Nations is going to have any teeth and we are going to avoid bankruptcy.
This means that it will be the prestige of France and Britain that is on the line if Gaddafi doesn’t willingly step down or succumb to the opposition forces. This is important. I agree with what Sen. Dick Lugar had to say yesterday:
“Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people,” said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the start of the committee’s Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. “But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.”
That is what I have been saying all along. However, France and Britain have different interests. If they are willing to take on the responsibility and the United Nations has authorized it, then I can sign off on that. But I still think they’re going about it all wrong. The policy is regime change. All diplomatic niceties aside, Gaddafi can’t come out of this clinging to power in any part of Libya. Since we know this, why make this a painful, prolonged process where the international community is relying on a ragtag, ill-equipped, ill-led, ill-defined opposition? Why not get it over quickly by landing forces in Tripoli and uprooting all vestiges of Gaddafi’s power?
It will come to that eventually, most likely, unless Gaddafi is offered some kind of sanctuary. Gaddafi responded to the passage of the resolution by immediately announcing a cessation of hostilities, but that only puts the lie to the intent of the resolution. No one cares whether he fights or not, so long as he is forced from power. Pretending otherwise is just going to get a lot of people needlessly killed and leave a war-torn country to rebuild.
Better to treat this as a band-aid. Rip it right off.
