Insanity Dawn

But "war," which is just a polite term for mass slaughter, is, I would estimate, 90 percent unintended consequences - mostly toxic. Some of these consequences are criminally ignored, hidden or denied. For instance, are we using depleted uranium explosives in our alleged humanitarian mission in Libya?

By Robert C. Koehler
April 1, 2011
Courtesy Of "Iviews"

As the Tomahawk missiles, our million dollar babies, rained down on Gadaffi's army and who knows what else these past couple weeks, I couldn't help but feel the clenched American fist protruding over global events again.

Yeah, we're back, world. How tragic that bellicose Republicans, in their indiscriminate hatred of Obama, have had to excuse themselves from the celebration, but still, Libya ain't Egypt, and America is in its groove again, unwavering in its commitment to freedom. No hedged bets, no sir, not this time, not when freedom's prelude is bombs, invasion and war. 

A number of troubling questions cloud my personal enthusiasm for Operation Odyssey Dawn, however. Most have been amply articulated: Who exactly are the rebels we're supporting? In a shattered economy, where is the sanity in spending more billions on a third war? Is it just coincidence that the dictator we decide to oppose militarily, out of such a global smorgasbord, is ensconced in an oil-rich nation? What gives President Obama, anymore than George Bush, the right to ignore Congress and wage war unilaterally and, it would seem, unconstitutionally? Why does the mainstream media once again feed us lies about precision bombing and limited duration? 

"Now that conflict has come," George Bush said eight years ago about Iraq, "the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force."

Don't we know yet that war is never what we think it is, and more often than not counterproductive even to its own stated aims? Thus, "the American military has been carrying out an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi," the Washington Post reported a few days ago, credulously purveying the wishful thinking of Pentagon strategists as though intention equaled reality. 

In the process, both the Defense Department and the newspaper manage to ignore the voluminously documented ineffectiveness of bombing campaigns to achieve their ends, usually unifying people around existing leadership against an outside threat rather than "breaking their will." 

Defining and bombing an enemy also dehumanizes a portion of humanity - turns people, indeed, into video-game abstractions - a process that never fails to dehumanize the aggressors as well, to terrible domestic consequences. This is a high price to pay for "peace" and "democracy" and the other gifts we purport to bring the nations we invade. The United States is already paying a huge price in backlash and PTSD for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To my mind, the most serious crime implicit in the planning, waging and reporting of war - even or especially the good war, the "just war" - is the selective focus on consequences: We limit our curiosity to the success or failure of our strategic goals. And when the latter occurs, the usual solution is more of the same, in heavier doses. 

But "war," which is just a polite term for mass slaughter, is, I would estimate, 90 percent unintended consequences - mostly toxic. Some of these consequences are criminally ignored, hidden or denied. For instance, are we using depleted uranium explosives in our alleged humanitarian mission in Libya?

DU missiles and shells have incredible penetrating power and have been used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan. They cut through steel like butter, explode on impact, destroy tanks with ease. They're also radioactive. They burst into a powder too fine to be filtered out by gas masks; this powder spreads over a large area, and people who breathe it suffer medical consequences that include cancer and neurological disorders. Their future children are far more likely to suffer birth defects. DU, of course, also combines with other toxins released and stirred up by modern warfare, contributing to the neurological and immunological hell suffered by our own troops, not to mention (and who cares about them?) the citizens of the countries we attack.

I asked Doug Rokke, a Gulf War I participant, sufferer of Gulf War Syndrome, and long one of the foremost experts on and critics of DU weaponry, whether he thought it was being used in Libya. While he lacked the means to confirm its use with absolute certainty, he thought the probability was high.

And, considering that uranium fragments keep burning after impact, the visual evidence confirms this. "I was watching ABC News last night," he said, "and, lo and behold, there was a DU impact. It burned and burned and burned."

Troubling, indeed, that the freedom we're purporting to bring to Libya might be radioactive.

The "just war" theory is the shockingly effective con game of the military-industrial complex. Each new war we launch is just. Each new war is an exception to the history of barbarism and disaster that characterize all, or almost all (depending on how closely you decide to look), previous wars. This war is necessary and certain to be quick. "Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force."

What nation will we attack next, Rokke wondered. Nigeria? Somalia? Worst of all, each new war feeds the next one.

*****

Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, contributor to One World, Many Peaces and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound (Xenos Press) is now available. Contact him at koehlercw [at] gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.

Preventing A Massacre

Had forces not intervened in Libya, the consequences in Benghazi would have been reminiscent of when the West failed to intervene quickly enough in 1995, when 8,000 Bosniaks were slain in Srebrenica [GETTY/GALLO]


Although More Clarity On Intervention In Libya Is Needed, Failure To Act Would Have Led To Another Srebrenica.

By David Cole
Last Modified: 31 Mar 2011 15:13
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"



In 1995, eight thousand Bosniaks were massacred near Srebrenica because the West failed to act.

UNPROFOR was rightly and roundly criticised for its failings. It was generally accepted that there's an obligation to prevent crimes against humanity where we are able.

Libya lies just three hundred kilometres from Malta. If intervening in the Balkans was helping our neighbour, intervening in Libya is helping the family across the street.

There can be no doubt that the regime of Colonel Gaddafi was and is embarked on a deliberate and systematic campaign of violence to crush all opposition to his regime.

On February 19th, Ajdabiya was controlled by the government and Benghazi looked set to fall next, taking with it the Libyan uprising.

Since then, the situation has changed. A UN mandated arms embargo, blockade and no-fly zone are restricting the Gaddafi regime's ability to wage war against his own people.

Of necessity, this intervention has been put together quickly. Only now is there a clear command system, largely put together through NATO as the organisation in the region best able to do it.

Neither NATO's involvement nor, indeed, Resolution 1973 set out what happens next. That leaves questions that must be at least considered, if not answered.

Firstly, what happens if Gaddafi goes of his own accord? Even now, we can hope that he will follow Ben Ali and Mubarak in quitting.

The international community will then need to help the establishment of a democratic state, presumably through the Libyan Transitional Council. That will entail the LTC establishing effective control over the territory of Libya, but it will likely need assistance in terms of civilian reconstruction and food aid in the short term.

Secondly, what happens if Gaddafi is forced out or killed by the rebels? Presumably by that point, the LTC would have effective control over all or nearly all of Libya.

In both of those cases, Resolution 1973 would effectively no longer apply and the current military operations should and would cease.

It is essential, both from a moral point of view and to avoid charges of imperialism, that it is the Libyans who govern Libya. Crucially, decisions on the use of Libyan gas and oil should be made by Libya, and there should be no repetition of the problems around the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law.

A third option seems possible: stalemate. If Gaddafi does not go and is not forced out, there could still be justification for continued actions to protect the rebels.

President Obama's interpretation of Resolution 1973 – that Gaddafi must withdraw from Benghazi, Zawiya, Ajdabiya and Misrata; and to allow in water, electricity, gas and humanitarian aid – at least suggests that a situation could arise where there is no mandate for further military action, but Gaddafi remains in power in some capacity.

Equally, the current situation may persist, with the Gaddafi regime not being repulsed by the rebels, even with the support of airstrikes.

In these cases, we would need to better understand what we wanted to do and how we wanted to achieve it.

Given the need for general agreement, a new resolution would probably have to be sought at the Security Council. Indeed, that would hold true for any changes or developments in Libya, such as providing weapons to rebel groups.

There is, undeniably, a lack of clarity. That lack of clarity seems to be at the base of concerns that Libya will become another Afghanistan or Iraq.

There have been charges made that this is an act of Western imperialism, or that it will become one. The mandate provided under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 specifically rules out an occupation force.

There is no political appetite or public desire to see another long conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan. Moreover, it is not clear, given existing military deployments, that NATO members could occupy Libya, even if they wanted to.

Yes, there needs to be clarity on what we will do, and as soon as possible, but the situation is ever-changing. In any case, an inability to predict the future does not mean that the West is about to embark on a neo-colonial expedition.

Nor does the fact that we cannot intervene everywhere to prevent crimes against humanity mean that we should not intervene anywhere.

Engaging in military action is always risky. Even in the Libyan case, there are arguments against intervention, as well as for different forms of military engagement.

What cannot be denied is that failing to intervene is also a positive, moral choice that brings its own consequences.

The acid test for any political decision is ultimately "what is the alternative"?

The alternative here would, like as not, have been the fall of Benghazi. The alternative would, like as not, have been another Srebrenica.

David Cole is the director of the Atlantic Council of the United Kingdom.

Precision Strikes In Libya?

A Libyan rebel in full military kit scans the skies at a checkpoint in Brega [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]


Flying Half-Blind In Libya

Rescue of downed US F-15 crew near Benghazi shows risks of identifying friend from foe in aerial war.

By Evan Hill
Last Modified: 30 Mar 2011 15:53
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

On the night of March 21, just 48 hours after the coalition air campaign against Muammar Gaddafi began, an F-15 Eagle, crashed in east Libya after suffering what the US military has described as a mechanical failure.

As the plane went down, its pilot and weapons officer ejected, opened their parachutes and drifted through the dark sky into the flat, Mediterranean scrubland around 40km southeast of Benghazi, a port city of nearly 700,000 at the heart of the rebellion against Gaddafi.

They were deep in friendly territory, and with the help of local residents, both would be rescued within hours. The problem: They didn't know it.

Two US warplanes - responding to a call for help from the downed pilot - swooped in and bombed the ground several hundred metres from approaching civilians. According to the UK Telegraph newspaper, as many as eight residents who came to help were shot by Marines sent to recover the stranded airman after the bombing run.

The reported civilian casualties haven't stirred outrage in Benghazi, where residents are more concerned with the rebels' tenuous advance and news of mass killings in western towns such as Misurata and Zintan.

But Libyans' affection for foreign air strikes depends on their success in routing Gaddafi's troops and saving civilian lives. Another mistake like the F-15 rescue, especially if it leaves dead civilians, could reverse the goodwill seen when crowds cheered Nicholas Sarkozy, the French president, in Benghazi's main square.

"I'm not gonna hold the French flag and kiss it," said Libyan-American Yaseen Kadura, who returned to Benghazi in late February to stay with his extended family. "Because I do know that these countries act in their own interest. But what is the alternative?"

Six Trucks and Men With Dogs

According to an account given to Al Jazeera by a spokesman for US Africa Command who asked not to be identified by name, the pilot first made contact with the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship in the Mediterranean, at 11:50pm. After landing, he saw six trucks and men with dogs moving nearby.

Few people on the front, whether "rebels" or "civilians," wear uniforms [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]

For the next hour, the pilot snuck southeast, trying to find a place to hide. Local men appeared to have seen the jet crash and were searching the area. They probably didn't know whether the plane belonged to Gaddafi or the coalition.

Coalition planes circling above observed the scene but couldn't tell whether the men were friendly rebels or Gaddafi’s troops, the spokesman said.

"Right now, in hindsight, we probably think they were friendly, but it's difficult to say that at one o'clock in the morning, especially for a pilot who's had his airplane fall out from underneath him," he said.

Neither the pilot nor the circling jets saw weapons in the group, but the pilot believed he had been spotted by the search party, now one kilometre away.

At 12:50am, the pilot requested a "show of force" from the Kearsarge. Two Harrier ground-attack jets on board the ship took-off in response.

Forty minutes later, they reached the pilot and dropped two GBU-12, laser-guided, 500-pound bombs into the brush around 500 metres from the unidentified men, halfway between them and the pilot. No one seemed to be injured in the blasts.

The attack was meant as a deterrent and had no "lethal intent," the US military spokesman said.

Somewhere nearby, the weapons officer suffered a sprained knee in his parachute landing and never had the chance to hide. He was reportedly found immediately by friendly Libyans who greeted him warmly and took him to safety in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, two Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft carrying a Marine search-and-rescue from the Kearsarge reached the pilot at 2:30am. According to residents who spoke with the Telegraph, Marines on board the Ospreys sprayed them with gunfire, injuring eight people. Hospital sources told British reporters who arrived on the scene the next day that one man might need his leg amputated.

American officers have denied the account, saying no one opened fire.

'No Way Of Knowing What's Friendly Territory'

In a rescue scenario, the US spokesman said, the downed pilot typically gets the benefit of the doubt when asking for help, though the responding aircraft ultimately decides whether to fire. In Libya, with Western governments loathe to be seen as aggressors against another Muslim nation, the rules of engagement are reportedly tight.

"The pilots are under fairly stringent orders that if there's any doubt about the identity of the target, then they break off the attack," the spokesman said, adding, in blunt terms: "It's not a free-for-all like Iraq."

But in Libya, coalition forces often don’t know what they're looking at.

"There's no way of knowing what's friendly territory or not," the spokesman said. Front lines change hour by hour, and the military doesn't receive that information immediately, nor are commanders "100 per cent" certain where friendly forces are positioned, he said.

The coalition's method of targeting Gaddafi's troops seems comparatively unsophisticated, relying not on vehicle markings or on-the-ground intelligence sources but on simple behaviour, a "sure sign of intent".

Even the rebels have tanks, and they rarely behave like a disciplined military [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]

"First of all, they watch them for a while, they can see [the unit] and observe it, they can see where they're going and coming from, they can watch tanks… if they turn north toward the fighting and fire toward what is known as a civilian target, [we] would attack them," the spokesman said. "But it's a pretty high burden of truth."

In Iraq, US air forces used radio technology to identify whether vehicles were friendly, but in Libya discerning opposing sides is extremely difficult, said David Hartwell, a UK-based Middle East security specialist for Jane's Defence Weekly.

The problem stems from a lack of education and a fluid battle with ill-defined front lines that leave pockets of opposition and loyalist forces scattered throughout the country, he said. Since the air campaign began only recently, it's possible that crews don't fully understand the political attitudes on the ground in Libya.

"There perhaps hasn't been time for the education process," Hartwell told Al Jazeera. "Clearly these pilots, these guys in these situations have to think on their feet, and to some extent you've got be a bit of a diplomat."

The military's default reaction to a downed pilot is to expect the worst and defer to the opinion of the man on the ground, he said, but since the UN resolution was specifically meant to protect Libyans from harm, there is a "huge onus" on avoiding civilian casualties.

Ultimately, the life-or-death choice over the proper response lies in the hands of the responding pilot, improvising his reaction based on information provided by an anxious airman who doesn't speak Arabic and just ejected into unknown territory.

Not knowing whether the approaching trucks were friendly or loyal to Gaddafi, "The [rescue] pilot may well have sort of reviewed the situation [and] said, 'Well yes, I can stop the convoy, but I don't necessarily have to blow it up," Hartman said.

The Conditional Love For Intervention

In Benghazi, the opposition's Transitional National Council hasn't made any statements on the incident or expressed dismay at the possibility that as many as eight civilians were wounded by US gunfire. At a press conference on Monday, a spokesman said the council was investigating accounts of civilian casualties in the past two days and hoped to provide more information "in due course."

As rebels drive westward, reclaiming ground recently occupied by regime troops and closing in on Sirte, Gaddafi's hometown, Libyans in the east are still jubilant. Benghazi residents say they're sure the coalition air strikes saved them from a massacre.

"People were on edge all day (before the strikes), like not even able to smile, being absolutely sick to our stomachs," said Kadura, the American who returned to Benghazi, where his large extended family of aunts, uncles and cousins lives. "I don't think we would have stood a chance."

Civilians in east Libya are happy with foreign bombing raids, for now [Evan Hill/Al Jazeera]

For weeks prior to the rapid diplomatic push for a resolution at the Security Council, Libyans had been pleading for international help. Their call for foreign air strikes was loud, unqualified and came from a broad swath of society. English teachers, bankers, and Islamists who had supported the insurgency in Iraq all said they would welcome US attacks on Gaddafi's forces.

Once French warplanes began striking Gaddafi's armor columns west of Benghazi, the population rejoiced. But Kadura's reaction has been more restrained.

Kadura said he read about the F-15 crash on Asad Abu'Khalil's Angry Arab blog but that it hadn't sparked much discussion among his group of friends, who are more concerned with the fight against Gaddafi.

"We assume that they have the technologies, that they'll be able to differentiate from the sky," he said. "That was obviously an exceptional situation … What we discuss is Ajdabiya, Misurata, Zintan.”

South of Benghazi, on the road toward Ajdabiya, where Gaddafi's forces had assembled in anticipation of a push on the city, dozens of vehicles and the corpses of regime troops littered the desert. Kadura and his friends were impressed by the accuracy of the strikes: One truck appeared to have been hit by a missile while pulling a disabled vehicle - only the functioning truck was damaged.

"We were all like, 'Holy crap,'" Kadura said.

For now, the air strikes are worth their potential price.

"In any other context, it would pain me to see the US intervening like this," he said. "The idea of having foreign powers in my country, in isolation from what is happening … is unimaginable. (But) after years of total dictatorship, I for one have had enough of Gaddafi and his total destruction."

Obama Authorizes Secret Help For Libya Rebels

President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:16pm EDT
Courtesy Of "Reuters"

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.

As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."

The CIA declined comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

Interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," he told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted to reporters that no decision had yet been taken.

U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, now appear able to make decisive gains.

While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.

SPECIFIC OPERATIONS

People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.

In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.

Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.

"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.

Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.

ARMS EMBARGO

Sending in weapons would arguably violate an arms embargo on Libya by the U.N. Security Council imposed on February 26, although British, U.S. and French officials have suggested there may be a loophole.

Getting a waiver would require the agreement of all 15 council members, which is unlikely at this stage. Diplomats say any countries that decided to arm the rebels would be unlikely to seek formal council approval.

An article in early March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, speculated on possible secret operations in Libya and defined a covert action as "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."

The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."

U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell in Washington and Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations; Editing by David Storey and Christopher Wilson)

The West's Strategy In Libya

Libya's End Game


As The Bombs Continue To Fall, The International Community Is Scrambling To Define Its Mission In Libya.

Last Modified: 30 Mar 2011 10:45
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

World powers met in London to discuss arming rebel fighters in Libya.

The talks focussed on military operations in the country and justifications for providing weapons to those opposed to Muammer Gaddafi, Libya's embattled leader.

The meeting follows Barack Obama, the US president's first speech on Libya since the intervention began.

Obama said he ordered the military action to enforce UN Resolution 1973, because if the coalition had waited one more day, there could have been a massacre among Libyans by Gaddafi's forces.

At the same time he spoke of the limitations of action and made a distinction between intervention and regime change. He delivered a straight dismissal of more aggressive action, describing any attempt to include regime change as a "mistake".

Which begs the question if the US and the rest of the international community are not trying to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi by force, then what is the proposed 'endgame' for Libya?

Inside Story, with presenter Kamahl Santamaria, discusses with: Oliver Miles, a former British ambassdor to Libya; Mustafa Alani, the director of the security progamme at the Gulf Research Centre; and Aly Abuzaakouk, the president of the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum.

No-Fly Zone: Clouding Words Of War

The cost of using only airpower against Gaddafi is strategic incoherence that will likely result in a stalemate [REUTERS]


The West Has Used Euphemism To Deny A State Of War Against Gaddafi Under The Guise Of A Humanitarian Mission.

By Tarak Barkawi
Last Modified: 28 Mar 2011 13:41
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

Phantasms from the 1990s are upon us: no-fly zones; the rhetoric of humanitarian war in Washington, Europe and the UN; guarantees that no US ground troops will be deployed; an air war which alone cannot decisively affect earthbound events.

President Obama swung for ringing tones in his statement on Libya, condemning idleness in the face of merciless tyrants who brutally assault innocents.

In the legal codes through which the international community acknowledges so untoward a happening as war, the UN resolved to protect civilians and create a cordon sanitaire around the blighted country.

But it was all a faraway echo from the Yugoslav heyday of believing people could be bombed for humanitarian effect.

The language of liberal war may still flow as easily in the West as Libya's sweet crude, but even the true believers are running on fumes on this one.

Few critics have even bothered to point out the obvious selectivity. Obama meant no idling before this particular tyrant, while the UN Security Council offered the beatific state of protected innocence to some Libyans only, not to Syrians, Yemenis, Palestinians or Bahrainis, much less those suffering in the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe or elsewhere.

Nonetheless the idea of liberal war, of the use of force for humanitarian objectives, continues to cloud opinion and profoundly informs the official terms of debate, in international forums and especially in Western Europe. It also shapes the character of coalition operations over Libya.

Denying War, The Art Of Euphemisms

Liberal war is so useful, particularly to 'good Europeans', because it denies it is war. It is a no-fly zone protecting human rights?

While quite obviously joining the Libyan rebels in their war on the regime, coalition commanders are forced to pretend otherwise. They regularly and politely inform Gaddafi's forces where they need to regroup to avoid being destroyed in the name of universal values.

In essence, and without ever saying so, the message to Gaddafi is that he must stop defending himself from those who would overthrow him. Why, we might ask, is it not possible to speak more plainly, at least to ourselves? Why must war be confronted with liberal euphemisms?

At the core of liberal war is a contradiction between big rhetoric – humanity, innocence, evil – and limited liability, signalled by 'no ground troops' and the pathetic legions of UN peacekeepers.

In wars primarily justified on altruistic grounds, the elected leaders of the Western democracies wisely, if conveniently, spare the blood if not the dollars of their own citizens.

The chosen weapon is air power and the cost is strategic incoherence. Absent a terrestrial policy, air forces are left to blow things up, surveil the results, and fly about. Other things being equal, the likely outcome is stalemate.

Most pernicious is the way liberal war frames understanding of conflicts. It performs a sleight of hand that can only be admired.

A Dramatic Play

There is space for two main actors, the humane intervener (typically the international community led by the West) and the barbaric perpetrator (a changing and selective cast of leaders, regimes and ethnic groups).

As if by magic, real countries and peoples, with interwoven histories, become characters in a morality play, essential types who behave according to innate characteristics.

The drama comes in various versions, and by no means does the West always come out well in the end. But the terms of thought are set in riveting fashion: interest and ideals, tragedy and politics, bureaucratic inaction and charisma.

Historical memory is a casualty so instantaneous no one notices. The US fought its first war in what is now Libya, against the Barbary pirates, also justified by humanitarian concerns undergirded with commercial interest.

Blinded by tales of well-intentioned Westerners and violent natives again and again, it becomes impossible to see the shared, interconnected histories that led to the current conflict, and within which Libyans, Westerners and others are situated.

Libya was granted independence as a kingdom only sixty years ago, with the US and UK as patrons, supplying cash and arms in exchange for oil and stability.

As elsewhere, then and now, this combination generated popular resentment. It provided the ground for political alternatives, which Gaddafi seized.

History's Funhouse

He may be a character from history's funhouse, sent to remind us that contingency's reign is great, but his origins are to be found in the conjoined histories of the West and the rest.

More recently, Gaddafi's border police and coast guard, trained and assisted by the EU, have been greatly valued by the 'good Europeans' for helping keep out the Africans.

Liberal war's last service is to locate the source of violence in the natives, on the backward peoples of the non-European world, not on the Westerners who exploit, invade, occupy and bomb.

If we go by official rhetoric, the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan apparently has to do with religious and ethnic prejudice among the peoples there, who irrationally keep killing one another as well as Western soldiers kindly sent to modernise them.

The great cost of liberal war is clarity. The West now risks creating a situation where it neither allows nor enables the rebels to overthrow Gaddafi, nor will it do so itself.

As in Bosnia and Kosovo, to supply arms or allow in Arab volunteers, would violate the supposed neutrality of humanitarian intervention. Gaddafi can turn to death squads and snipers to carry on his fight.

War is not a morality tale, but a violent mutual embrace. Serious thinking begins with acceptance that we in the West are now combatants, and ethical responsibility requires seeing beyond the seductions of liberalism.

Tarak Barkawi is Senior Lecturer, Centre of International Studies, University of Cambridge. He specialises in the study of war, armed forces and society with a focus on conflict between the West and the global South in historical and contemporary perspective. He is author of Globalization and War, as well as many scholarly articles.

The Burden Of Leadership

Air attacks by coalition forces have destroyed equipment belonging to Gaddafi's regime, but critics say too many civilians have been killed in the process [AFP]


How Can The Arab League Support A No-Fly Zone Over Libya and Then Complain After It Is Put In Place?

By Robert Grenier
Last Modified: 26 Mar 2011 18:27
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

No good deed, they say, goes unpunished.

Still, the haste with which Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, began to chastise those implementing the no-fly zone over Libya mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1973 – a resolution, mind you, solicited only days before by the Arab League itself – was almost breathtaking.

It may be bad form to quote oneself, but this aspiring pundit cannot refrain from noting his prior observation in this space that the League's resolution endorsing a UN-sponsored no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians fairly reeked of ambivalence.

In the same piece, this correspondent noted that it was perhaps too much to expect the US to take a leading role in promoting and then implementing a no-fly zone, if one were eventually adopted by the Security Council, given America's parlous standing in the region, where any perceived misstep would certainly be seized upon by its erstwhile Arab enablers as a sign of malevolent intent.

Nonetheless, and acting perhaps against his better judgement, president Obama took the League's resolution as an indication of regional support and joined the British and French in pressing for a UN-sponsored no-fly zone.

Diplomatic Language

The Security Council, fortunately, was alive to the reality that a measure designed ostensibly to protect civilians, but which limited itself to the threat from aircraft, ignoring the far more deadly menace posed by Gaddafi's tanks and artillery, would amount to little more than posturing.

The Council therefore adopted language permitting "all necessary measures" to protect civilian populations "under threat of attack".

It is good that this language was included. Without it, French jets would not have had authorisation to attack the tank columns closing in on Benghazi and Ajdabiyah. Without it, significant regime elements might by now have penetrated in force into densely-populated areas of Benghazi, beyond the effective reach of coalition aircraft, and prepared to visit Gaddafi's revenge on the turbulent people of Libya's second-largest city in their own way, and in their own good time.

Perhaps it was just this action which gave Amr Moussa second thoughts.

Whatever the proximate reason, sure enough, the secretary general was voicing doubts barely hours after the resolution went into effect, expressing concern over the vigour of coalition attacks and the possibility of coalition-induced civilian casualties, throwing continued Arab League support for the effort into considerable doubt.

As Raghida Dergham of Al Hayat newspaper put it to him in a subsequent interview, did he not know that enforcement of a no-fly zone would "require bombings on the ground"?

In that same interview, questioned as to the prospect of continued violence and an open-ended Libyan civil war, Mr. Moussa suggested the likelihood of quick success for the UN's humanitarian mission, with the prospect of a ceasefire and international observers in place.

This is pious nonsense, and Moussa knows it. Anyone having the barest acquaintance with the Libyan regime is fully aware that there will be no ceasefire worthy of the name, and that Gaddafi will stop at nothing until his enemies are eradicated.

The rebels know this full well: This will be a fight to the finish, and the price of failure, at least for the rebels, will be death.

A regime schooled for years by the East Germans in the use of domestic terror as a means of political control is not about to reach a "peace of the brave" with those whom it regards as traitors.

Indeed, one shudders at the thought of what must be happening, as these words are written, in areas thus far retaken by the regime.

Power Without Responsibility

No, the words of the outgoing secretary general and aspiring president of Egypt are those of one long accustomed to operating secure in the knowledge that he will never be expected to act upon his words, and can leave those actions to others; that he will never have to take genuine moral responsibility for unintended consequences he can neither foresee nor control; and that he can content himself with demands for outcomes free of moral ambiguity, without having to produce them himself.

Those days, thankfully, may soon come to an end. The demand for changes in the quality of Arab leadership will come both from the international community and from Arab citizens themselves.

The text of resolution 1973 explicitly exhorts members of the League of Arab States to involve themselves in carrying out the military actions it provides for; thus far, only little Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have pledged to do so.

Obama has wisely insisted that the US step aside, once having made those contributions only it can make, in order to cede leadership to others, including those in the Arab world, whose interests are far more directly at stake in Libya than are those of the US.

And Turkish prime minister Erdogan has very wisely insisted that, while NATO may take on the role of operational coordination of military actions in Libya, the burden of political guidance, in what will inevitably become a highly complicated and politically uncertain situation, be far more widely shared.

Here especially, Arab nations should not be allowed, and should not allow themselves, to avoid responsibility.

Of the three elements of UN-mandated action in Libya – a weapons embargo, a no-fly zone, and protection of civilians – the first two are relatively easy; the third is exceedingly ambiguous and difficult.

As the Libyan rebels continue efforts to free themselves from a vile regime from which they can expect no quarter, the international community is sure to be confronted with a series of difficult choices.

When and where should coalition aircraft intervene to attack the regime's superior armour, artillery and rocket forces, when their mandate is restricted to civilian protection?

The logic of the situation dictates that short of outright regime change, large numbers of Libyan civilians, who can never again be considered reliable by the regime, will remain abjectly vulnerable to the tender mercies of Gaddafi, even if far from the front lines of battle. Who will protect them?

Libyans In Control

Virtually no one argues that the international community should remove Gaddafi by direct use of force, no matter how fervently they may desire his fall.

Clearly, Libyans must be the agents of their own liberation, if free they are to be. For this, moreover, they will have to pay a heavy price in blood.

But the action or inaction of international air forces will doubtless play an important role in determining whether the Libyan people's sacrifices are to be rewarded with success or with tragedy. The Arab world must share in the moral responsibility for those choices.

Already, detractors of Obama are attacking him for what they describe as his timidity in trying to cede leadership in this crisis to others. Seizing upon the limitations and internal inconsistencies of the recent UN resolution, they are demanding that the US provide the consistent leadership that is unlikely to come from an international committee.

Obama will be wise to ignore these taunts.

Yes, some Libyans may well die needlessly due to the vagaries and inconsistencies in tactical decision-making which will inevitably occur as those who take up practical implementation of UNSCR 1973 over the longer term struggle with that responsibility.

But the American president must also remember that the struggle within Libya, no matter how gripping and morally compelling to some, including this observer, does not engage core US national security interests.

In this instance, it should be an element of US leadership to demand a greater degree of responsibility and political maturity from others – including those in the leadership class of the Arab world. Eventually, the Arab people will demand nothing less.

It is part of the logic of the democratisation process in the Arab world, however lengthy and uncertain that process may be, that those who have taken their lives and their destinies into their own hands, who have assumed responsibility for their own fate, and taken decisive action on their own behalf, will demand the same of their leaders on the regional and international level.

Amr Moussa, who aspires to leadership of the country in the vanguard of that process, would do well to keep this looming imperative in mind.

Robert Grenier is a retired, 27-year veteran of the CIA's Clandestine Service. He was Director of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Centre from 2004 to 2006.

Responsibility to Protect Or Right To Meddle?

The "responsibility to protect" concept, a justification for the no-fly zone in Libya, remains a controversial idea [EPA]


The Libya No-Fly Zone Is Either A Humanitarian Mission Or An Excuse To Meddle, Depending On Who You Ask.

By Gregg Carlstrom
Last Modified: 24 Mar 2011 14:47
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

While the Western-led military coalition in Libya continues to debate the exact goals of its offensive there, a broader discussion is playing out in some foreign capitals: did the United Nations even have the authority to authorise the action?

The week-old bombing campaign in Libya has prompted a debate over what's known as "responsibility to protect," or R2P, the convention that the world has a responsibility to prevent war crimes and protect vulnerable populations.

Supporters of the no-fly zone over Libya like to call it a humanitarian operation, and argue that days of sorties - mostly by American, British and French planes - have prevented wider civilian casualties. Refugees International, for example, praised the no-fly zone as "international intervention to protect the people of Libya."

Critics have reached exactly the opposite conclusion: The Chinese government said on Tuesday that the no-fly zone would lead to a "humanitarian disaster," and warned against "causing even more civilian casualties through the use of armed force." (China was one of five UN Security Council members to abstain from voting on resolution 1973, which authorised the no-fly zone and bombing campaign.)

A 'Historic Breakthrough'...

The R2P concept rose to prominence largely because of the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. It became something of an official UN position in 2005, when hundreds of heads of state publicly endorsed the idea at a meeting of the General Assembly in New York.

And it was explicitly invoked in resolution 1973, which declared a core goal of "protect[ing] civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack."

The resolution is based on chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which gives the Security Council wide-ranging authority to identify and stop "threats to the peace" and "acts of aggression." Chapter VII has been used to justify a variety of UN actions in the past, including those in Somalia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. But experts say this is the first time it has been explicitly used in the context of protecting civilians.

"The explicit invocation of R2P within a chapter VII resolution is a significant, perhaps even historic breakthrough in our stated commitment to end mass atrocities," said Jonas Claes, a scholar at the Washington-based US Institute of Peace.

One of the most prominent advocates for R2P, US academic Samantha Power, is also a senior member of Barack Obama's national security council.

"Every human being's rights now have claim on international responsibility and protection," Power wrote in a 2006 book, Realizing Human Rights. "No country can now say that the human rights of any human being subject to its jurisdiction is no one else's business."

The R2P concept considers military intervention a last resort, something to be used only after diplomatic measures fail. Advocates of the no-fly zone in Libya say it has met that requirement: international condemnation did not stop Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, nor did economic sanctions on high-level government officials.

… Or A Dangerous Precedent?

But are Libya's internal problems an international issue to begin with? Critics say no: Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, said earlier this week that "we want Libya to resolve its internal matters without foreign intervention."

Gaddafi's offensive against the rebels in eastern Libya has undoubtedly killed civilians - and he has vowed to go "house to house," killing protesters - but critics say Libya's civil war is ultimately a Libyan issue, and that the "responsibility to protect" goes too far in giving powerful countries a mandate to intervene in the affairs of others.

They are quick to point out that the R2P concept is applied selectively. Gaddafi's crimes against his own people were apparently enough to justify international intervention, but the leaders of Yemen and Bahrain - both of whom have ordered brutal crackdowns on peaceful protesters - face no such threat.

The R2P concept is also abstract enough to cover, and legitimise, a range of military interventions. Consider Saddam Hussein, whose ghastly human rights record includes the use of chemical weapons against his own people. Proponents of the American war in Iraq could have argued that toppling Hussein was an effort to "protect civilians."

It has done no such thing, of course; more than 100,000 civilians have been killed since the invasion, according toclassified US military records. But R2P could nonetheless be used as a justification for "regime change"; indeed, the British foreign office said yesterday, the ultimate goal in Libya is a country "not run by Gaddafi," an objective that seemingly goes beyond the mandate of simply protecting civilian life.

Those criticisms aside, though, some of the harshest critics of the Libya campaign could also be accused of acting out of self-interest. Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin both condemned the airstrikes, the former calling it a bid to seize Libya's oil reserves, the latter likening it to the Crusades.

It's unclear, one week in, whether the campaign in Libya will oust Gaddafi or simply enforce a stalemate. Equally unclear is whether it will set a precedent for future interventions.

Endgame In Libya

As European and US Military Jets Continue Their Operations Against Gaddafi's Forces, Will It Bring Peace To The Country?

By Riz Khan
Last Modified: 22 Mar 2011 14:44
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"



How can the international military coalition opposed to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, bring peace to that country without getting caught in a prolonged military conflict?

The US, France and Britain successfully enforced a UN Security Council-approved no-fly zone over Libya to stop Gaddafi's forces from attacking rebels in the east.

But many are wondering if those airstrikes will be enough to deter a defiant Gaddafi and whether international troops are needed to push back Libyan government forces.

Complicating matters is a growing chorus of criticism from a number of nations including Turkey, China and India. Also, Vladimir Putin, Russia's prime minister, has called the UN resolution a "medieval call to crusade".

We will be discussing those issues with US congressman Dennis Kucinich who has been critical of Barack Obama's decision to strike Libya; Ali Suleiman Aujali, the former Libyan ambassador to the US, who now represents the Libyan National Transitional Council in Washington, DC; and military strategist Sam Gardiner, a retired American Air Force colonel.

The West's Nightmare

Europe's Leaders Fear Libya Could Become Next Afghanistan

The Europeans and Americans would like to help the rebels in Libya, but the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have spurred fears of a military intervention. So far, the only thing the EU has been able to agree on are financial sanctions. In Germany, leaders fear getting sucked in to the civil war.

By SPIEGEL Staff
March 14, 2011
Courtesy Of "Der Spiegel Online"

There are times when some politicians and diplomats in Europe and the United States wish that someone would die. They wish that a head of state or government would give the order to dispatch a number of aircraft or launch a few missiles. They don't speak openly of this, of course, but they do say these things under their breath. "Why doesn't somebody just shoot him?" they ask. Usually, this hope is directed by Europe toward America.

This is again such a time. A number of politicians and diplomats are quietly hoping that they will hear one morning on the radio that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has died during the night. According to this scenario, the news bulletin will then inform listeners that an American bomber squadron has safely returned to its aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean.

The current situation calls to mind former US President Ronald Reagan. He tried to eliminate Gadhafi back in April 1986. At the time, Reagan ordered 36 laser-guided bombs to be dropped on the Bab al-Azizija military compound, Gadhafi's command center in the suburbs of Tripoli. Gadhafi survived. Reagan was derided for the failed mission and sharply criticized for the attempt. Some Western countries view such actions as murder -- and thus unacceptable.

When it comes to war and the West, it always boils down to a question of ethics. Now all eyes are directed toward US President Barack Obama. What will he do? He has the arsenal required to make a renewed attempt, but he apparently also has greater scruples.

Merkel Skeptical

The same holds true for the Europeans. At their summit in Brussels on Friday, European Union leaders called for Gadhafi to immediately resign. Although a military operation has not been ruled out, it has been made contingent on the approval of the United Nations, the Arab League and the African Union. Speaking after the meeting, German Chancellor Angela Merkel underscored that she was highly skeptical about a no-fly zone. The EU is relying on economic sanctions for the time being.

This is a nightmarish situation for the West. For years, Europe and America have courted Gadhafi and regarded him as a valuable business partner, without giving so much as a second thought to the suffering of his people. Now a large proportion of this oppressed population is fighting for its freedom, but the West is doing little to halt the advances made by Gadhafi's loyal supporters. The West wants to help, but it remains helpless.

In this situation, the countries of the West are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they only sit back and watch, they tacitly accept that Gadhafi will probably crush the rebellion and take terrible revenge. If they intervene, they will have to be prepared to kill, and innocent people may die. And if they enter into this conflict, they will need a concrete exit strategy.

Iraq and Afghanistan

As politicians in Europe and America grapple with the issue of Libya, they are strongly influenced by the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two predominantly Muslim countries have been attacked and occupied, also with the aim of creating a better world according to Western models. But these have not been success stories. The regimes backed by the West have been dubious, to say the least, and the security situation remains precarious. After more than nine years of fighting, war continues to rage in Afghanistan.

The negative experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have sown doubt in America and Europe about the morality of these missions. Gadhafi benefits from these misgivings, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

There is no easy solution for Libya à la Reagan -- whose botched bombing mission didn't solve anything anyway. There is only a long and difficult search for a way to help the country's population, without upsetting the population in Europe, which would like to avoid at all costs another protracted war in a Muslim country.

As a preliminary step, the US has severed all ties with the "existing Libyan Embassy" in Washington, but continues to maintain diplomatic relations with Libya. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will travel to northern Africa this week to meet with Gadhafi's rivals. According to the State Department, she has already contacted members of the opposition, both inside and outside of Libya.

Obama Rules Out Unilateral Action

Military action is also being discussed. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels last Thursday: "We agree that we will continue with the planning of all military options."

But the Obama administration has ruled out taking unilateral action. White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley recently said: "All options are on the table. But it has to be an international mission."

Since a UN resolution currently appears unlikely, NATO is the only organization that comes into question for joint military operations. A high-ranking US government official said in Brussels last Wednesday: "The US believes that NATO is the natural choice for a military operation."

But Obama continues to hesitate, and this lack of action is drawing increasing criticism. James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, recently warned a Senate committee that the opposition won't be able to topple the dictator on its own. Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain and independent Senator Joe Lieberman are both criticizing Obama's reluctance to intervene. They say that he has to do more to support the opposition. McCain, for his part, is calling for a no-fly zone.

'Anybody Who Proposes A No-Fly Zone Should Say Who Will Enforce It'

That step, however, is highly controversial in Washington. The US military, which has already been stretched thin by its deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, has remained rather reticent in its comments. Establishing a no-fly zone would be a "challenge," says General James Mattis, the commander of US Central Command. The US military would first have to destroy Libya's air defenses, he says.

Until now, the US military has limited its engagement to bolstering its fleet in the Mediterranean and sending ships to the waters off the Libyan coast.

For the EU it will be even more difficult to come to a joint position on Libya, although that didn't stop French President Nicolas Sarkozy from unilaterally taking action. Last Thursday, France recognized the Libyan National Transitional Council in Benghazi as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people. Sarkozy says that he intends to dispatch an ambassador there. Furthermore, government officials in Paris say that the French president wants to use targeted air strikes to weaken the Gadhafi regime.

The German government was not informed of Sarkozy's plans. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle was talking with his new French counterpart, Alain Juppé, when he heard about the French proposal. Westerwelle had the impression that Juppé was also unaware of his country's new position.

'We Have To Think This Through'

In Berlin, the Chancellery was indignant over the French initiative. At the summit in Brussels, Merkel voiced her clear opposition: "We cannot recognize the transitional council," she told the assembled heads of state and government. "The former justice minister is a member of this body and look at the role he played in the case of the Bulgarian nurses."

Indeed, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov has claimed that representatives of the transitional council are linked to the mistreatment of a Palestinian doctor and five Bularian nurses held for nearly eight years under what is widely believed to have been a false conviction on charges of infecting children with HIV at a hospital in Benghazi. In 2007, after long negotiations with the EU, the medical workers were pardoned and returned to Bulgaria.

On Friday, Merkel repeated her position in English: "On transitional council, don't recognize."

Merkel also clearly expressed her reservations with regard to a no-fly zone: "What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn't work? Do we send in ground troops?" she asked before adding: "We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don't intervene elsewhere?"

It was a sharp rebuff for Sarkozy. European leaders have little doubt about his motives. French foreign policy in Northern Africa has relied far too long on despots like Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Sarkozy now intends to rectify the situation. He fears that France could lose its traditional leadership role in the region.

Until recently, France and Germany have had their separate areas of responsibility: While Paris looked after the Mediterranean area, Berlin was more oriented toward Eastern Europe. But in internal discussions, Westerwelle has already made it clear that this will no longer be the case. Much to the annoyance of the French, Berlin now also wants to have a greater say in the Mediterranean region.

Fears Germany Could Be Drawn In

Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Westerwelle agree that nothing good will come from a no-fly zone over Libya. They both fear that Germany could be be drawn into the civil war in this way. The government also knows, though, that economic sanctions are only effective over the long term, so Berlin doesn't want to entirely rule out the option of military intervention. The obstacles are significant, however, since China and Russia are showing little inclination to approve such a mission in the UN Security Council.

The German government's hesitant stance also arises from the fact that Germany recently won a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. Although this presents an excellent opportunity for Westerwelle to play a more prominent international role as foreign minister, it also means that Germany will probably have to participate in the mission if the Security Council approves a no-fly zone. Anyone who claims a leading role in New York must be prepared to assume certain responsibilities.

The opposition also supports the German government's position. No one in Berlin is calling for a no-fly zone without a mandate from the Security Council. But there are members of parliament who refuse to simply stand by and watch as Gadhafi massacres his own people.

A no-fly zone would entail enormous technical and political problems, argues Kerstin Müller, the foreign policy expert in parliament for Germany's traditionally dovish Green Party. "But if the situation worsens and Gadhafi hunts down people from the air and kills them," she adds, "then the international community will have to seriously consider a no-fly zone area."

Before that happens, however, all non-military options must first be exhausted and the risks of escalation carefully weighed up, Müller says. She points out that an increasing number of Libyan opposition figures are calling for the West to intervene. Müller says that there is also an international responsibility to protect people.

Philipp Missfelder, the foreign policy expert in parliament for Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), also refuses to rule out a no-fly zone. "If you want to show the regime that you mean business," he argues, "then you have to put a few options on the table." He says that using fighter jets to shoot at demonstrators could definitely be classified as a crime against humanity. Missfelder emphasizes that any intervention would first have to be approved by the Security Council.

The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the German parliament, Ruprecht Polenz (CDU), is also calling for restraint. "What happens if the no-fly zone doesn't work?" he asks. "Then this will immediately be followed by the demand: You have taken the first step, now you have to take the second one."

The clearest arguments against a military intervention by the West are presented by Rainer Stinner, the foreign policy expert in parliament for the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP), which is Merkel's government coalition partner. "Anyone who proposes a no-fly zone should (also) say who will enforce it," he contends. Such a decision could lead to aerial combat and other fighting, he says. "Should we then send in the German Luftwaffe?"

Limited Success Of No-Fly Zones

The experience of the West with no-fly zones has shown that such measures can quickly lead to combat situations. For instance, without a prior mandate from the Security Council, between 1991 and 2003 the Americans imposed a ban on flying over the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq and the Shiite regions in the south of the country. There were numerous clashes. US fighter jets shelled Iraqi anti-aircraft positions and shot down Iraqi fighters.

The no-fly zones enjoyed only limited success. Under the protection of coalition forces, the Kurds in northern Iraq were able to establish an autonomous zone. Since helicopter gunships were excluded at first from the flight ban, however, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was able to quash Shiite rebellions in the south of the country.

There were also military clashes in the no-fly zone that NATO established between 1993 to 1995 during the war in Bosnia. NATO aircraft shot down a number of Serbian fighter jets. Nonetheless, this did not allow NATO to prevent the Srebrenica massacre, where 8,000 Bosnians were killed.

Another problem has to do with the issue of who benefits from what type of intervention by the West. 

Too little is known about the rebels and their objectives. Even diplomats in Tripoli know little about most of the men on the opposition's interim governing council. The only exceptions are Ali Al-Issawi, until recently the Libyan ambassador to India and currently the insurgents' "foreign minister," and Mahmoud Jibril, the former Iraqi planning minister. Last week in Paris and Brussels, both men called for international support.

Another Unpopular War?

The chairman of the National Transitional Council, former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil, is not a charismatic figure, but on a number of occasions he has publicly interceded on behalf of political prisoners held by Gadhafi's regime. His National Council is hopelessly divided and could only agree on three points: Gadhafi must go, the West should impose a no-fly zone, but Western troops should not fight on the ground.

Nobody knows what kind of state these men want to build, or what freedoms it would guarantee. President Hamid Karzai -- intensely pandered to by the West -- has turned out to be a corrupt ruler in Afghanistan.

In Libya there is also no solution that would genuinely satisfy the West. There is no clear, promising vision of the future of this country without Gadhafi -- but there is no doubt that it will be disastrous with Gadhafi.

Is military deployment the answer? Germany could easily be drawn into another war at a time when the majority of Germans already oppose their country's military presence in Afghanistan. Sometimes politicians have little choice but to grin and bear the burden of their own decisions.