NATO RESPONSE:The momentum behind intervention is growing but there is little sign of a consensus on tactics, writes SIMON TISDALL
WESTERN COUNTRIES are urgently considering a number of options for intervention in Libya, ranging from military operations to diplomatic initiatives and stepped-up humanitarian assistance.
The momentum behind intervention is growing because the fighting that began last month shows no sign of ending. But the international community, and in particular the 28-member Nato alliance, has not yet reached a consensus on the best course of action. All are fearful of involvement in another war with the Afghan conflict still raging.
Increased intervention could decisively swing the battle in favour of the rebels. Or, if mishandled, it could strengthen Gadafy, alienate Muslim opinion, and undermine the credibility of the revolt. So what to do?
No-fly zone:
This is the most discussed of the “military” options. In theory such a zone could cover all of the country, or just the major coastal cities, or notional corridors for transporting relief supplies. Britain and France are pushing this, and Arab League and Libyan rebel leaders are in favour. The US and other Nato allies are more cautious. Ivo Daalder, US ambassador to Nato, says it would have limited effectiveness. Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, says Gadafy’s air defences would have to be destroyed first – tantamount to declaring war. It is also unlikely, unless the regime commits an egregious act against civilians, that China and Russia would give support. Turkey is opposed.
Bomb first, think later:
Leading US senators and ex-officials, anxious Gadafy may survive, are pressing Obama to get tough. Democrat John Kerry said US bombers could “crater airports and runways”. Republican John McCain wants to ensure Gadafy is unseated. Others have proposed arm drops to rebels (in violation of the UN arms embargo) or missile strikes on “high-value” targets.
Covert operations:
Western countries, with the US in the lead, could make life difficult for Gadafy in a number of ways without directly engaging him militarily. These include cyber warfare attacks involving the jamming of military signals, communications and ground-to-air radio and the disruption of telephone and computer networks. Intelligence gathering and sharing is another way of quietly supporting the opposition.
The insertion of special operations forces is another option. The extensive “covert ops” experience of eliminating Taliban field commanders in Afghanistan could be applied on specific Libyan battlefronts. Assassination of the heavily guarded Gadafy is probably too difficult, and in any case politically problematic.
Soft power:
The remaining, simpler options are easily the best – and easiest to choose. They include co-ordinated diplomatic efforts to talk to opposition leaders, build personal and political ties with the Benghazi council, advise on organisation and outreach as rebel-held territory expands, and help create a roadmap towards a post-Gadafy, democratic future. Soft power options also involve stepping up humanitarian relief operations and evolving plans for long-term development assistance.
The EU is already thinking along these lines. Friday’s summit will discuss aid and trade. The Arab League and Gulf Co-operation Council should be making similar plans. Such methods take longer than other options. And they must sometimes be combined with “hard power”, for example to protect humanitarian transport corridors with air power. But because they are non-confrontational they have a greater chance of achieving lasting change.
– ( Guardianservice)