The head of U.S. Africa Command, charged with running the
operation in Libya, said that the international coalition in Libya will not help the
rebels' military units, only civilians targeted by Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces -- assuming
they can tell the difference between the two.
"We do not provide close air support for the opposition
forces. We protect civilians," Gen. Carter
Ham, the top military official in charge of the operation, told reporters
in a conference call on Monday. The problem is, there is no official
communication with the rebel forces on the ground and there is no good way to distinguish
the rebel fighters engaged against the government forces from civilians fighting
to protect themselves, he said.
"Many in the opposition truly are civilians...trying to
protect their civilian business, lives, and families," said Ham. "There are
also those in the opposition that have armored vehicles and heavy weapons.
Those parts of the opposition are no longer covered under that ‘protect
civilians' clause" of the U.N.
Security Council resolution that authorized military intervention.
"It's a very problematic situation," Ham admitted.
"Sometimes these are situations that brief better at the headquarters than in
the cockpit of an aircraft."
So how are pilots in the air supposed to tell the
difference? If the opposition groups seem to be organized and fighting, the
airplanes imposing the no-fly zone are instructed not to help them.
"Where they see a clear situation where civilians are
threatened, they have... intervened," said Ham. "When it's unclear that it's
civilians that are being attacked, the air crews are instructed to be very
cautious."
"We have no authority and no mission to support the
opposition forces in what they might do," he added.
What's more, the coalition forces won't attack Qaddafi's
forces if they are battling rebel groups, only if they are attacking
"civilians," Ham explained. If the Qaddafi forces seem to be preparing to
attack civilians, they can be attacked; but if they seem to be backing away,
they won't be targeted.
"What we look for, to the degree that we can, is to discern
intent," said Ham. "There's no simple answer."
One thing that the coalition is clear about is that there is
no mission to find or kill Qaddafi himself.
"I have no mission to attack that person, and we are not
doing so. We are not seeking his whereabouts or anything like that," Ham said.
He acknowledged that the limited scope of the mission in
Libya could result in a stalemate, which would achieve the objective of
protecting civilians but allow Qaddafi to remain in power.
"I have a very discreet military mission, so I could see
accomplishing the military mission and the current leader would remain the
current leader," Ham said. "I don't think anyone would say that is ideal."
He said the United States was looking to transfer leadership
of the mission to an international organization or structure within a few days.
U.S. planes flew about half of the 60 sorties above Libyan airspace on Sunday
and are expected to fly less than half of the sorties Monday.
The attack on one of Qaddafi's compounds over the weekend targeted
a command and control building inside the compound, and did not represent a
widening of the mission to attack Qaddafi's core military infrastructure, Ham
said.
Rules of engagement are intentionally "murky" in Libya. I would call them "intentionally ambiguous," because the Western alliance stays on the officially stated purpose of "protecting the Libyan people from Gadhafi" refrain, while the scope of the mission is to eventually tear apart the Gadhafi regime. And that should be the final outcome, both from a moral, ethical
and humane standpoint.
John F. Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." That is what happens in Libya today. Targeting Gadhafi and his children
is not a crime, it is a virtue. There are real stories -some of which Hollywood turned into movies- where a bully in a small town beat and abused people for years, and he had gotten away with a slap in the wrist from the local authorities. But suddenly one day, the people in the town had had enough and cut the bully down. And when the police came to investigate, nobody had seen or heard anything! The deaths of those bullies still remain unsolved. The reason? There was no crime committed; it was justice rendered!
Fast forward to Libya at 2011. There is Gadhafi, taking over Libya in a military coup with his buddy Ahmad Jaloud in 1969; treat Libyans like serfs and the country like his private property; made Ahmad Jaloud vanish, plunders Libya's oil wealth and stash more than $100 billions abroad which his children use to buy $ 15 million homes and make $ 2 million donations to universities to grease the award of Ph.D degrees for themselves, and he cut down any Libyan who dares to challenge hi rule! The international community slap him on the wrist with U.N. sanctions; Ronald Reagan bomb him -but he escapes; he funds terrorist activities through intermediaries, and he tramples any internal dissent for almsot half a century!
The mad rule of Muammar Gadhafi lasts for 42 years, but after the Tunisian and the Egyptian Revolutions, the Libyans find the courage to rise against him! But he is not like the bully in the small town that had only his muscle to beat and punch the locals. Gadhafi has tanks, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, aircraft fighters, and African mercenaries to crush any challenge to his rule. He also has his son Saadi commanding the Khamis Brigade, the best army unit, which guarantee protection and loyalty to him. And, to add-insult-to-injury, he tells Libyans that he "cannot quit, because he is not a president, nor he has any public position to quit! He is just the head of the Libyan Revolution," [the military coup of 1969, which he called a revolution]. Well, only a berserk will make such a oxymoric claim, but in Gadhafi's world, he is both "a nobody and an irreplaceable leader" combined into an eternal dictator!
But when the rebellion in Libya spread against this self-made egomaniac dictator, he used his military power to cut down anybody who dared to say they couldn't live under his brutish rule, and told rebels to surrender or else. "We are coming tomorrow," he warned. "And if you don't surrender, and hide in the closet, we are going to find you, and we will show no mercy." He then declared a "phony" cease fire to fool the outside world, and then pushed on to Beghazi to eliminate opponents to his rule once and fol all! But he didn't fool anybody, and the Western allies knew that his army was advancing toward Benghazi - despite his declared cease fire. The allies then decided to prevent the slaughter of the rebels by Gadhafi. The attacked and destroyed the column of his advanced army; destroyed his anti-aircraft missile batteries, and hit his military compound headquarters. But Gadhafi wasn't there. He went into hiding - like Saddam Hussein when the bombs started to fall.
Now the question has arisen. Should the allies target Gadhafi himself? Absolutely, they should! Of course some argue that there is no such mandate in the U.N. Security Council(UNSC) Resolution, but the UNSC has no authority to issue execution resolutions. The authorizations by the UNSC to "take all measures necessary to protect the Libyan people" must include the measure of "eliminating the threat against the Libyan people," and that is Gadhafi himself. He, and his sons, have made the decision - and bragged about- to eliminate anybody who opposes them, and as long as they are in power they will continue to be like a Damoclean sword hanging over the neck of the Libyan people.
The allies, therefore, must eliminate the real threat - the Gadhafis, and let the Libyan people elect their leader. Allowing the Gadhafis to stay in power will prolong the allied military engagement, and cost many more lives and devastation from ongoing military activities. The Libyan people do not want an anti-Gadhafi anesthetic; they want the Gadhafi cancer excised out of the body of Libya! Nikos Retsos, retired professor
Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
Read More
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE