I'll start by stating the obvious: that by the time you finish reading, the situation in Libya will have likely changed. Hmm, now if that doesn't induce you to keep reading, I don't know what will!
But there's much the mainstream media (this includes Fox News) isn't saying or talking about. Needless to say, I'm happy to step up.
Let's start off with the basics: after four decades, dictator and notable sunglasses enthusiast Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is under threat of being ousted. Or at least, he was (I'll get to this later).
One tactic not much reported that Gaddafi is using is the hiring of foreign and domestic mercenaries. The dude has a ton of money, and is using it in up front cash and promises of generous payments at the conflict's conclusion. This money is giving Gadaffi the ability to surge across Libya, as well as squash uprisings in the nation's west. The most prominent group of mercenaries are the Tuareg, who are nomads of the Sahara with literally millennia of experience with this sorta thing. Suffice to say, they don't give a fuck, and are willing to do things that Gaddafi's Libyan forces aren't willing to do to their own people.
The foreign enforced No Fly Zone is a new variable that transforms many other variables, chief amongst them are the desertions and recruitment of pro-Gaddafi forces.
Gaddafi, in his deep benevolence towards the plight of the people, has declared a cease fire, hoping to induce the rebels to cease their fire. Only the most gullible would believe his intentions for a second. It would be too complimentary of me to call this a ploy, but it is designed to give Gaddafi time to regroup and reload from his previous assaults. His supply lines are long, and reinforcements from the West are being delayed by sporadic uprisings. Gaddafi's forces are keeping cities such as Misrata and Benghazi under pressure while he redistributes his firepower.
The key question coming after the No Fly zone announcement is this: how far will Coalition forces go in protecting the rebels? The UN resolution itself is uniquely broad in its language, forbidding only land forces from occupying any part of Libya. The resolution allows for any actions that are necessary to protecting civilians. This could include strikes against Gaddafi's land forces, a move that would turn the tide of the rebellion, or if unused, would ensure the defeat of the rebels. This decision, to use airpower against ground units, will determine the fate of the nation more than anything else.
Since the start of the rebellion, huge swaths of the Libyan military have been defecting, and even right now, continue to do so. Libyan forces observed by Western powers have been seen stopping in the deserts and resolving 'internal conflicts' with gunfire. Even within the forces loyal the Gaddafi, there is conflict. What's retaining and recruiting more forces to Gaddafi is money along with the general consensus that he'll win out. Had Western powers acted with strength and punctuality, Gadafi's promises of wealth would have been ineffectual, since getting paid by a dead man requires a ton of paperwork.
I had typed out an elaborate paragraph of monday morning quarterbacking, but decided to sum it up with this: the UN is less clutch than Chris Webber, often wanting to take timeouts during inopportune times. Suffice to say, the UN acted a week too late.
The question is then, why do we care? We care because the region can prosper only through representative-reforms, and if successful, the rebellion will fuel other anti-authoritarian movements.
What will it look like in the eyes of the Iranians when Libya has overthrown it's dictatorship? What will people in China think when they view celebrations in Tripoli? With Saudi Arabians blink when Gaddafi's palace burns? What will the people of Pyongyang think when they-oh, that's right, they haven't discovered television yet. But my point stands, that the 2011 North African revolutions have spread democratic reforms in a way that the Iraq and The War Against Terror have not.
This is where American military power can be maximized. This is where we can use our air force and navy to give antiauthoritarian forces the firepower to overthrow brutal regimes. We won't be landing any troops on the shore of Tripoli, so I think comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan are a stretch. But if we did, it's important to remember that unlike Iraq, Libya is a relatively homogeneous population; and unlike Afghanistan, Libya is geographic wet dream. Let me explain.
Libya much easier to control. That's why 5-15% of the population has been able to repress Libya so far, and will continue to do so. Historically, whoever has been able to control the coast has been able to control Libya.
It's understandable, and even a good sign, that people bring up Iraq and Afghanistan. It's important to understand how America overreached there. Afghanistan and Vietnam have demonstrated we are lead history illiterate leaders (both these nations are known as places that Empires go to die). Iraq and Afghanistan showed us that we can't impose democracy in a fractured and psychologically damaged nation.
But Libya is none of these things. Libya is in fact a religious homogenized nation, with 90% of the population being Sunni. Also, Libyans are among the richest in Africa, and boast one of the highest literacy rates on the continent. If there's a place where democratic reforms can take hold and prosper, Libya seems to be it.
If the rebels win out, the question would remain of what would come next. Would the rebels consume themselves in deadly infighting? Would forces loyal to Gaddafi wage a guerrilla war? Would a coalition of Hare KrishnasScientologists paratroop in and conquer the nation? It's hard to say, but let's take some stabs at it.
Allah only knows what the rebels would have come up with in terms of a government, but suffice to say it would be more democratic than it is now. Chief power players in the new order would be the military leaders of the rebellion along with the former high ranking officials from Gaddafi's government. The risk for religious fanaticism is lower than it would be other places, mostly due to the relative prosperity that Libyans enjoy. Nobody with a TV wants to live a 7th century lifestyle, as fanatics would have them do.
But, this is all pissing in the wind, since the rebels won't capture Tripoli, and won't survive until Easter without more direct international assistance. Perhaps prompt air support and logistical support would have extended the revolution long enough for it to achieve victory. On a totally completely unrelated note, I remember another eight year revolution that depended upon foreign involvement. Nine out of ten kegs of gunpowder used by Americans during our spat with England were in fact supplied by France.
If the West wanted to assure the rebels of victory, then we would attack Gaddafi's army units while providing material support to the rebels. If these two steps aren't taken, then expect Gaddafi to be in power for the next decade, before one of his sons takes over the family business.
After the rebels have been squashed in a few weeks, Gadafi’s forces will use terror and death to control and punish the Libyan people. Months of massacres will be newsworthy, but the oil will start flowing again and we will overlook it. Who wants to pay $4 for a gallon of gas anyway?
