Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Time for Intervention Running Out

With Libyan forces seeming to have the upper hand, time is running out on whether and when the United States, NATO or the UN should intervene militarily in the conflict.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

With Libyan government forces advancing towards the rebel capital of Benghazi, the time for possible military intervention by the U.S. and its NATO or other allies appears to be running short.

Nonetheless, discussion of possible military action continued apace Monday, with Libya topping the agenda of a foreign ministers' meeting of the Group of Eight in Paris and the U.N. Security Council meeting behind closed doors late Monday to take up an unprecedented appeal by the Arab League to impose a no-fly zone over parts of Libya.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also scheduled to meet late Monday in Paris with envoys from the provisional government established in Benghazi who were expected to press her both for formal diplomatic recognition and for immediate U.S. military assistance in the form of a no-fly zone over the eastern part of the country.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama, in a brief White House appearance with visiting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, reiterated that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi "needs to leave" but gave little hint as to whether Washington supports a no-fly zone or other military steps to protect the rebel government or reverse the current tide of battle.

"(I)t's going to be very important for us to look at a wide range of options that continue to tighten the noose around Mr. Gaddafi and apply additional pressure," he told reporters.

"And so we will be continuing to coordinate closely both through NATO as well as the United Nations and other international fora to look at every single option that's available to us in bringing about a better outcome for the Libyan people," he said.

The day's events came amid a remarkably vigorous public debate here over whether and, if so, how Washington should intervene militarily in the nearly four-week-old conflict in Libya, even as Gaddafi's forces appeared to make substantial gains in their eastward drive against the rebels.

Over the weekend, government forces, using tanks, infantry, and helicopters, reportedly retook Zawiyah, near Tripoli, and laid siege to Misurata, the only other western city that remained in rebel hands late last week. At the same time, they reportedly secured the critical oil refinery town of Ras Lanuf and captured most of Brega, 110 kms to the east.

On Monday, residents of Ajdabiya reported that their city, located only about 160 kms from Benghazi, had come under attack by air and by artillery.

The speed of the Gaddafi forces' advance and the apparent inability of the rebels to resist the regime's superior firepower have underlined for analysts here how little time may remain for any effective intervention on the part of foreign powers.

"It seems to me that the debate that is taking place here may soon be moot in that Gaddafi's forces seem to be taking back ground at a rate that may make it too late for the international community to really turn the tide," according to Charles Kupchan, a foreign policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Nonetheless, that debate, which began in earnest when it became clear that Gaddafi, unlike Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, was determined to deploy military force against popular demands for his ouster, has continued to rage among elite sectors here, even as the aftermath of Friday's earthquake and tsunami in Japan has diverted the attention of the mass media from Libya.

Like the controversy in the 1990s over U.S. intervention in the Balkans, the debate has generally pitted hawkish neo- conservatives and liberal interventionists on the one hand against foreign policy "realists" and some regional specialists on the other.

Among the most-recent entries on the interventionist side have been former President Bill Clinton, who came out in support of a no-fly zone at a women's conference in New York late last week; former President George W. Bush's deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz; and Hillary Clinton's recently departed policy planning chief, Princeton University Prof. Anne-Marie Slaughter.

In a New York Times op-ed published Monday, Slaughter charged the Obama administration and the European Union (EU) – which, while calling on Gaddafi to resign, failed to agree on a common position on military action at a Friday summit in Brussels – with "temporising on a no-flight zone".

If the Security Council failed to authorize one, she went on, Washington should recognize the rebel regime in Benghazi as the legitimate government, as France and Portugal did last week, and work with the Arab League to give it any aid it requests.

But the realists, including Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), who commanded NATO's 1999 Kosovo campaign under Bill Clinton, have expressed skepticism, noting that a no-fly zone or even the provision of direct military aid could become a "slippery slope" into a much bigger intervention that Washington can ill afford given its ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of a regional backlash.

"A no-fly zone in Libya may seem straightforward at first, but if Gaddafi continues to advance, the time will come for airstrikes, extended bombing and ground troops – a stretch for an already overcommitted force," Clark wrote in the Washington Post Sunday.

"If we're serious about doing things to give the rebels a real chance of defeating and toppling Gaddafi, it will take much more than grounding the Libyan air force, and halfway measures could do more harm than good," Kupchan agreed.

"I think that caution appears to be prevailing on both sides of the Atlantic, and that the voices in favor of intervention are significant but thus far losing the debate," he noted, adding the Arab League's endorsement, while significant, would not itself tip the balance in either Washington or Brussels unless Arab states are willing to offer more than political and diplomatic support to military action.

Perhaps the strongest argument made by the interventionists – or at least the one with the greatest political resonance here – is that Gaddafi's victory could reduce or even reverse the momentum of the pro-democracy movement that has swept across the Arab world over the past two months.

"If he survives, the virus of repressive bloodshed and unyielding autocracy could flow back through the region," noted Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl, and Kupchan conceded it would constitute a "definite setback for the democracy movement".

But Obama, even while he has repeatedly called for Gaddafi's ouster, has already shown some ambivalence toward opposition movements, particularly in Bahrain and Yemen where U.S.- backed leaders have been fending off popular demands for radical reform for several weeks.

"Confronted with conflicting advice on what to do, the final coin thrown into the balance on the side of inaction on the part of the White House might have been that doing nothing in this case would quite possibly reduce the boldness of reformists, oppositionists, etc. more generally," according to Wayne White, a former senior State Department Middle East analyst. "The U.S. is, after all, largely a status quo power."

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Established in Baltimore in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest Zionist organization in the United States—and also among the most aggressively anti-Arab ones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and chosen by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a 2016 Republican presidential candidate.


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

President Trump and his Iranophobe supporters are itching for a war with Iran, without any consideration of the disastrous consequences that will ensue.


Print Friendly

The war of words and nuclear threats between the United States and North Korea make a peaceful resolution to the escalating crisis more difficult than ever to achieve.


Print Friendly

The new White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, is anything but non-partisan or apolitical. For the deeply conservative Kelly, the United States is endangered not only by foreign enemies but by domestic forces that either purposely, or unwittingly, support them.


Print Friendly

The prospects of Benjamin Netanyahu continuing as Israel’s prime minister are growing dim. But for those of us outside of Israel who support the rights of Palestinians as well as Israelis and wish for all of those in the troubled region to enjoy equal rights, the fall of Netanyahu comes too late to make much difference.


Print Friendly

Rich Higgins, the recently fired director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, once said in an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program, that “more Muslim Americans have been killed fighting for ISIS than have been killed fighting for the United States since 9/11.”


Print Friendly

This is how the Trump administration could try to use the IAEA to spur Iran to back out of the JCPOA.


Print Friendly

President Trump seems determined to go forward with a very hostile program toward Iran, and, although a baseless US pullout from the JCPOA seems unlikely, even the so-called “adults” are pushing for a pretext for a pullout. Such an act does not seem likely to attract European support. Instead, it will leave the United States isolated, break the nuclear arrangement and provide a very reasonable basis for Iran to restart the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent in earnest.


RightWeb
share