If the tide turns: some pros and cons of military intervention in Libya
Abu Rohan
In the last few days there have been a number of calls for international intervention to try to stem the atrocities that the Qaddafi regime is carrying out against Libyan civilians, including military measures such as the imposition of a no-fly zone. (Sanctions and other steps have also been proposed, but I doubt that they would have much impact on a regime fighting for its life).
We might be past the point where the declaration of a no-fly zone would make a major difference -- the Libyan air force (that part which has not defected) does not appear to be terribly effective and airlifted mercenary forces in the east seem to be contained. The city of Tripoli and several other towns on the west coast do appear to be at the mercy of loyalist mercenaries and militias, and are suffering terribly, but there is probably little that could be done militarily, short of a massive and prohibitively problematic amphibious invasion, to rescue them. Rebels in Benghazi are reportedly beginning to mobilize to move west, so it's quite likely that Libyans will be able to complete the overthrow of Qaddafi without outside help.
However, dictators have come back from the brink before: Saddam in 1991, for example, although his hold on the country was probably never as tenuous as Qaddafi's is right now. If there is any chance Qaddafi were to stage a major turnaround, and bring major rebel-held cities like Benghazi or Misrata under siege, then the United States and other powers capable of intervention in Libya should consider what might be done to prevent a terrible humanitarian disaster.
Here are a few thoughts, both for and against intervention, mostly extrapolated from my experience in Iraq. I have focused here on the likely local impact on Libya, as opposed to issues of legality or sovereignty, of precedent, or of any larger strategic or historical picture.
1) Little is known about what would emerge from a post-Qaddafi Libya, but a Qaddafi victory would be absolutely dismal. Firstly, the behavior of regime loyalists in Tripoli suggests that there would be terrible reprisals. Secondly, it would probably many dark years ahead for the people of Libya. A people who have been crushed once tend not to rebel again, at least not in the form of mass urban uprising, for some time -- a decade, perhaps for as much as a generation. (Prolonged guerrilla warfare is different, but that has all kinds of other nasty fallout).
The world could not possibly return to business as usual for Libya after a Qaddafi victory, but ironically treating a nation as a pariah frequently only appears to strengthen the regime in place. The public begins to resent the outside world, while elites begin to scale their ambitions to what the regime can provide locally. This removes an incentive in future crises to remove an oppressive leader so as to remain international citizens in good standing. (I am thinking Saddam's praetorians contrasted with Mubarak's, here).
2) A no-fly zone would probably not suffice to prevent major assaults on rebel-held cities, should they materialize. Maybe aircraft flying threateningly overhead would be enough to deter regime assaults. But if it doesn't, then even a small number of tanks and artillery pieces can make it very difficult for defenders to hold ground, and we don't know if rebel armor is operational. An intervention force would probably need to be prepared to strike ground targets, like the Bosnian Serb artillery positions hit in 1995, to provide any sort of guarantee for the defenders of rebel-held cities. This could lead to any number of terrible errors -- it might be extremely difficult to judge from the air, from context, whether any given vehicle column were moving to attack a rebel-held city, or moving to its relief.
3) Iraq is doubtless what comes to mind when one contempates Western military intervention in the Arab world. But intervention in Libya would not necessarily be a repeat of Iraq, or rather, it would not be Iraq 2003. Rather, it would be Iraqi Kurdistan in the summer of 1991, or Bosnia in 1995. An invasion that comes at a time of relative calm, on the invader's timetable, is terrifying even to those who loathe the incumbent regime. An intervention that targets an imminent threat, which alleviates fears rather than triggers new ones, may be seen very differently.
4) Any foreign incursion into Libyan land or airspace risks tainting the rebellion as foreign-backed. Most battalions in the Libyan military do not appear to have committed to either side. Some units may see international aircraft overhead, conclude the jig is up for Qaddafi, and commit to the rebels. But that's an optimistic view. Libyans troops in uncommitted battalions might be very isolated at this point. Their perceptions of what is going on right now might be very different from the international narrative. Some officers who deeply desipise Qaddafi might nonetheless fight against any transgression of national sovereignty -- perhaps calculating, as Iraqi officers did after 2003, that participating in a national struggle was a better investment in their political futures than "collaboration." (Some officers who have defected to the rebels have cited Qaddafi's use of mercenaries as a decisive factor). Also, a regime which falls completely due to the efforts of its own people, rather than to the work of foreigners, would be more likely to lead to its moral collapse -- ie, you would be less likely to have Qaddafi revanchists threatening other Libyan factions in the future.
Reader Comments (13)
I hope for the libyans sake that people stand firm against foreign intervention into libya. The momentum is on their side, and ghaddafi seems completely isolated.
NATO/UN/US troops would only be there to secure the oil.
The precedent that this would set for any future interventions would be horrible.
Why not call for foreign intervention into egypt, when pro govt goons were shooting people in tahrir square.
Let the libyans finish ghadaffi themselves!
What seriously wonders me is that no one seems to acknowledge the fact that Egypt is only a few 100 km away from the slaughtering in Libya.
It runs a very large and well equipped Army as well as being part of same culture.
Why the H'''' are they not urged either by 'own' interest or by public in general to take action and interfere on behalf of humanity?
(Perhaps even humanitarian thinking is rather new to this region? As only the West automaticly expected to stand up and intervene for such a cause..)
The West has nothing to do in this haunted region. It could even be petrol on a fire.
The Middle East/Africa should be able to recognise it self as an independent region. And stop this ongoing ridiculous role as either irresponsible scapegoats or believing these widespread apparently Godsend dictators !
And yes we do buy oil and lot's of other important resources from this region and actually are paying in exchange. (Dirty political games and tricks are taking place in this region as well as anywhere else on attractive 'playgrounds'..)
This region seems to be chronic unable to share their wealth fairly. Or love to spent their mental resources on religious bogus instead of building stable societies!
I hope the coming generations will be wiser in their choices and political behaviour in general.
Uhu:
"The West has nothing to do in this haunted region."
If only that were true! The West is heavily involved in the whole region (if not the whole world), and it is definitely working behind the scenes, just as it did with Egypt.
Many Egyptians have called for the army to intervene and save Libyans, but it would be complicated for the exact same reasons explained in the post above.
"This region seems to be chronic unable to share their wealth fairly. Or love to spent their mental resources on religious bogus instead of building stable societies!"
I see Orientalism and neo-colonial rhetoric is still alive and well :) It's embarrassing to hear someone say things like this in 2011.
Typo: presume Bosnia in 2005 should be Bosnia 1995.
"Any foreign incursion into Libyan land or airspace risks tainting the rebellion as foreign-backed"
Bang On.
"Some units may see international aircraft overhead, conclude the jig is up for Qaddafi, and commit to the rebels."
Yes, Ironically.
There is a precedent for militarily intervention in a neighbouring country .
In the 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to prevent the continued genocide of it’s own people by the Pol Pot regime. It succeeded. When fellow Arabs are being massacred and with it’s own citizens being killed indiscriminately, Egypt has a moral duty and the means to intervene in Libya and end the killings. Gadaffi is unbalanced and desperate enough to use biological and chemical weapons.
Great analysis. Given its history of acting as "global policeman," many are looking to the US for a military response in Libya but no one has any idea what the outcome would be. If the US were to send a drone to bomb Qaddafi, it could turn out very badly or accelerate the crisis in unexpected ways. How can they know exactly where Qaddafi is? Would Qaddafi loyalists retaliate on the many foreign workers still in Libya? It should not be the US's role to be a global cop, but the world has accepted America in that role. How about some leadership from Libya's neighbors? The Arab League? The UN Security Council? EU?
I think it is expecting too much to expect Egypt to respond unilaterally. Egypt is in a very fragile place, still in crisis and trying to build a new government.
Libya must, at all costs, break the cycle by which most of the African/Arabic world has found itself in, being tossed from one form of lunatic governance to another, by resolving this issue themselves and on their own terms.
Unfortunately this will mean blood will be spilled, but it will also ensure that no longer will they be held to ransom by the stupidity of any form of regime.
Well said Theo.
Revolutions are by definition bloody and forceful moments in history. If you give the so called international community the right to invade Libya right now, then the precedent it sets will be tremendous.
Why would we left them invade during Egypt Revolution. Because 2000 died in Libya and only 300 died in Egypt? Because Gaddafi is crazier than Mubarak was?
Leaving these arbitrary and subjective thresholds to the EU/NATO/US is dangerous. These are the same organizations that have in some way supported and facilitated the two major wars of the last decade. One of these wars cost somewhere between 100k-1 million Iraqi lives.
Do Iran and Syria have the right to invade Bahrain to protect them against the Bahraini King? No..
So neither does the West in Libya.
Try sites like Harry's Place, You will find such (and worse) alive and very kicking in 2011 thereabouts.
Military intervention could very likely just prolong the conflict and cause even more bloodspill. It would create a bubble of unresolved conflict.
The only intervention I see as proper at the moment is getting in shelters and medical aid, and evacuating injured from the overfilled hospitals. If the UN or RCRC want to they could probably establish a presence in eastern Libya for that purpose.
Ah, Bosnia 2005 -- the humanitarian intervention that was so smoothly carried out, no one even noticed. Oops! Thanks for catching that.
I would agree that if the rebel-held east does turn out to need assistance to prevent being overrun, and requests such assistance, then Egypt would be the obvious candidate to intervene. I suspect however that the Egyptian military is probably in risk-avoidance mode at this point.
From what I am reading, a lot of Libyans are *not* calling for military intervention. What they want are a package of sanctions and other measures that the international community might operate in order to *assist* and *support* the revolution on the ground in Libya.