Into Libya

And now for another war

by Lexington

DISTRACTED by the tsunami and nuclear catastrophe in Japan, American punditry lost sight for a while of the negotiations taking place in the UN Security Council. So it was with something of a surprise that Washington awoke this morning to discover that the council had authorised "all necessary means", including a no-fly zone, to protect Libya's population from Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. By comparison with the year or more of angst that preceded George Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, the pros and cons of this decision have received remarkably little debate.

One explanation for the speed of the decision is that, unlike the case in Iraq, time is of the essence: Colonel Qaddafi's forces are on the rampage now, whereas in 2003 Saddam Hussein's far worse atrocities were far behind him and the invasion was not launched in order to resolve an immediate humanitarian crisis. But the upshot is that the aims of the coalition now preparing for action are utterly confused. Is the mission to freeze the respective forces in place or to create conditions in which the rebel forces can eventually topple the dictator?

The other big uncertainty is how much America will be involved. It seems that Britain and France will take the lead, with token help from a couple of Arab air forces. Maybe Qaddafi's forces will melt away as soon as they face serious military opposition. Or maybe, despite his promises to fight to the death, he will decide to negotiate a safe exit to retirement in Latin America. His first reaction has been to announce an immediate ceasefire. But what if it does not hold, and the subsequent fight is dragged out? In that case President Obama's evident desire for America to take a back seat may well be thwarted. The Europeans' small air forces cannot match the reach and firepower of America's—and having demanded that Qaddafi must go Mr Obama's own reputation is now on the line.

For what it is worth, I welcome the fact that the world at last seems willing to exercise its so-called "duty to protect" people at risk from their own governments. The failures to do so in Rwanda and Darfur and so many other charnel houses is a blot on its conscience that will never be erased. But there is no escaping the fact that this new entanglement was decided upon behind closed doors at the UN and with very little public debate here in the United States. None of this will matter if the end comes quickly. But if things go wrong and America is drawn deeper in, the domestic consequences for the president could be far-reaching.