NATO:SENIOR MILITARY figures in Nato expressed relief yesterday that Muammer Gadafy's regime had crumbled after an alliance operation that significantly supported Libyan rebels.
But while western nations have achieved their goal of ending Col Gadafy’s grip on power, the Nato operation has encountered significant problems during the past five months – and is certain to be the focus of debate among member states and military experts.
The defence alliance saw a number of successes. Few, if any, civilian casualties were incurred on the ground; no alliance aircraft or personnel were lost; and the mission saw no flagrant breaches of the remit it received from the UN, which defined the goal of the operation as the protection of civilians on the ground.
However, on many other counts the mission has faced acute criticism. It took five months – far longer than defence planners had expected – to topple a regime whose military assets were regarded by the US as puny.
By contrast, Nato in 1999 forced the far more powerful Serbian military out of Kosovo in just 2½ months.
“Nato has staggered across the finishing line in Libya,” said Brigadier Ben Barry, a senior analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
“I don’t think its success in the last few hours invalidates any of the criticisms. This was a campaign that was inadequately resourced and Nato is very lucky not to have ended up in a long-term stalemate.”
The Nato mission in Libya was marred by huge problems securing the resources it needed. Britain and France have borne the brunt of the effort, deploying most of the aircraft carrying out bombing missions since March. Other Nato member states – most notably Germany and Poland – refused to commit any air assets to the mission at all. – (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011)