If the War in Libya is to Protect Civilians, Why Aren't We Protecting Civilians? Posted by Michael Cohen

In his last Twitter communication before he was tragically killed in the Libyan town of Misrata, Tim Hetherington wrote, "In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO." 

It seems odd that there was no sign of NATO air power in Misrata, which has been under siege for several weeks now and has been subject to flagrant attacks against civilians by Gaddafi forces. After all it was just under a month ago that President Obama declared, “some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Of course these words were spoken about the potential for a civilian bloodbath in Benghazi, but it seems, increasingly, that if Misrata were to fall we could be dealing with a similar situation. Surely there is the risk of significant civilian casualties, even massacres. If the US and NATO is engaged military in Libya to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe why are they not acting more pro-actively to protect civilians in Misrata?

The answer to this conundrum is, of course, not overly complicated. Both the US and NATO have pledged not to put troops on the ground in Libya so they will go only so far to protect Libyans as can be accomplished via air power. In a very real sense this exposes the farcical nature of our intervention in Libya. We are there nominally to protect civilians, but that goal is a constricted one; and is subservient to the larger imperative of the White House to limit military and, in turn, political exposure to the conflict.  In short, we are willing to protect civilians, but only so long as we don’t actually put American or European troops in harm’s way.

At the Huffington Post, David Wood captures the essence of this dilemma and the problems it is causing in bureaucratic Washington:

Washington took the bold step of committing military force, but not enough to win. The administration waited to apply very limited military force until it was almost too late, and now, it has painted the U.S. "into a corner." In the resulting stalemate, Libyan rebels and civilians are being ruthlessly pursued and killed while the United States, in effect, stands helplessly by.

The White House wanted the Pentagon to come up with a low-cost regime-change plan for Libya. Ideally, this strategy would have toppled Col. Muammar Gaddafi without bogging the U.S. down in another inconclusive foreign adventure. And by no means could the plan have included young American infantrymen advancing under fire across the sand.

The military kept insisting that no such option existed. A real regime-change operation, some officers argued, requires "boots on the ground." That was a cost the White House, given rising domestic pressure to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, was unwilling to consider.

The White House thought the Pentagon was disrespecting the president by refusing to propose a politically acceptable action plan, while the Pentagon became furious that White House officials didn't "seem to understand what military force can and cannot do,'' the official said.

In the past I have been critical of the US military for not only disrespecting the President but for openly manipulating him on Afghanistan policy. But in this situation, it is the military that is being played.  The White House by refusing to consider putting troops on the ground has given the military an impossible mission – protect civilians without ground forces or even the ability to effectively conduct close air support. What’s worse, unless the White House wants to more fully escalate the conflict they’ve made it practically impossible to fully protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi’s wrath - a contradiction of why we went to war in the first place.  

So now the choice is to maintain a status quo that Tony Cordesman rightly points out could lead to more civilian suffering or escalate the conflict, put boots on the ground and ensure that Qaddafi is toppled. Neither option is terribly palatable, but both provide compelling evidence about the dangers of embarking on a military intervention in both a half-cocked and half-assed manner.  

I'm sympathetic to Cordesman's argument that we now must consider putting troops on the ground to salvage our policy in Libya and end a war that we have helped to escalate, but it's a terrible choice we face. One can argue at great length about whether it was right to go to war in Libya in the first place . . . but what seems incontestable is that trying to fight a limited war on the cheap that doesn't meet our military objectives, but furthers some rather fuzzy political ones is no way to fight a war.

Comments

[CQOKKQCM2M]

Peace Caravan: MISSING. Soldiers surrendered, executed and mutilated. A question of central banks?. Arms supplies. Cluster bombs. Algeria "base attack?. See:

http://aims.selfip.org/~alKvc74FbC8z2llzuHa9/default_libia.htm

[DJF]

Sorry, haven’t you heard, the US turned the Kinetic Military Action in Libya over to NATO, in particular the European part of NATO. Please refer your questions and comments to people such as David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy.

[Community Association Management]

Hey thats the great thing.Its all about the protecting Civilians and i can get so many best information and the things from your sharing.Its really very interesting.

[冷夜]

tary kept insisting that no such option existed. A real regime-change operatio

[The best knockoff handbags]

it's good

[link building service]

The administration waited to apply very limited military force until it was almost too late, and now, it has painted the U.S. "into a corner." In the resulting stalemate.

[Jeffrey C. Goldfarb]

The stalemate opens the possibility for elite defection, the isolation of Gaddafi and a negotiated transition. There are twists and turns in the course of the war, but it will end either with such a transformation or partition. The Obama's policy makes sense to me now, as it did from the beginning. It makes a democratic transformation more likely and did stop a humanitarian disaster.
http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/03/obama%E2%80%99s-speech-on-libya/

Much better than his approach to Afghanistan.

[Account Deleted]

Hey thats the great thing.Its all about the protecting Civilians and i can get so many best information and the things from your sharing.Its really very interesting

Çerçeve çerçeve
Çerçeveci çerçeveci

[tequila]

How unfortunate that this post was written about a day before Gaddafi's forces retreated from Misurata and the deployment of Predator drones.

[Mladen]

But now Ghaddaffi pulled regular soldiers from Misrata, no doubt to use them in controlling as many oil fields as he can. So now in Misrata you'll have local citizens and local tribes looking each other warily, while making case for own control of oil fields smell more of colonialism then on protection of civilians. So, Ghaddaffi's plan? Make you pay dearly for intervention, checkbook-wise. With no oil to get for effort. Worked in Iraq...