Coalition’s War Aims Remain Confusing

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

More than a week into Operation Odyssey Dawn, there are still no clearly stated war aims on the part of the coalition formed against Moammar Gadhafi.

Now that NATO itself has taken control, no one is certain what the rules of engagement are: while France wants a very muscular policy of targeting Libyan weaponry and troops, Germany and Turkey are more cautious.

According to the White House, the United States is not taking the rebels' side in Libya and not using military means to unseat the dictator. The aim is to prevent humanitarian catastrophes -- the mass killing of civilians.

Yet from the air alone, it's almost impossible to shield civilians in the cities controlled by the dictator.

Indeed, the U.S. calls it not a war, but a "time-limited, scope-limited military action." It is "very uncertain on how this ends," Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted.

The Arab League, initially in favour, has backed away from real support of the mission. Only two relatively minor countries, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have been involved.

As for the African Union - an organization liberally funded by Gadhafi oil money - they have said little other than hoping for a negotiated settlement between Gadhafi and the rebels.

George Friedman, founder of the Stratfor global intelligence consultancy, said that the allies are now supporting "a very diverse and sometimes mutually hostile group of tribes and individuals, bound together by hostility to Gadhafi and not much else."

They have formed an Interim Transitional National Council to try and lead the rebellion. But Washington has not yet decided whether to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, saying that it raised legal questions.

On March 28, Obama made a ludicrous speech. The first half spoke of how the U.S. understood the Libyan people's aspirations for freedom, and described Gadhafi's cruel regime in horrific detail; the second half told the American people, and the world, that, even after having intervened militarily in Libya, it was not the job of the U.S. to effect regime change in the country.

America would exert economic and political pressure, stated the president, but nothing more, to get rid of the dictator, even if it were to take months or years.

Obama's policy lacks clarity and is logically incoherent. In his world, it appears that one can militarily attack another country with massive force, yet oppose removing the enemy's leader! I suspect Gadhafi won't appreciate these nuances.

Here's the bottom line (and forget all the other babble): the rebels can't defeat Gadhafi; the coalition has to do it. If it doesn't, he'll stay in power and cause even more trouble than he has in the past, because there's no need for him to "play nice" anymore.