Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

The U.N. vote paved the way for possible international air strikes on Gadhafi's advancing military and reflected the past week's swift reversal of the situation in Libya .......

The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians."

It also authorizes U.N. member states to take "all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." .....


.....The resolution also calls for stronger enforcement of the arms embargo, adds names of individuals, companies and other entities to the list of those subject to travel bans and asset freezes, and requires all countries to ban Libyan flights from landing, taking off or overflying their country.

It also demands that Libya ensure the "rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance" and asks U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to establish an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring sanctions.

The Libyan military has been escalating its violence against protesters, leading well-meaning diplomats and observers around the world to suggest that NATO enforce a no-fly zone in the country to prevent even greater civilian casualties. At first glance, it would seem that sophisticated NATO forces would have no problem enforcing that policy. But think again.

Experiences in Bosnia and Iraq have proven that no-fly operations are a lot harder to maintain than most civilians assume. Establishing a no-fly zone over a country the size of Libya would take hundreds of fighters and refueling aircraft. And with Libya's network of Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles, such round the clock flights would be hazardous duty. If an allied pilot was shot down, more lives would be placed at risk to rescue him. There's another practical problem as well: Locating every airborne helicopter or fixed wing aircraft in Libyan airspace would take a massive surveillance effort. As the revolution turns to civil war, the operation could suffer from a lack of focus.

I'm not advocating a military intervention of any type. But if the world insists on preventing Libyan military aircraft from flying, it's not logical or efficient to maintain endless 24-hour sorties, waiting for the Libyans to launch aircraft and hoping to shoot them down before they target civilians. It would be simpler and more effective to destroy the country's air force on the ground—and much safer for our fliers.

No matter who is conducting the air strikes—a coalition of the willing of Britain and the U.S., a NATO force a la Bosnia or a U.N.-sanctioned operation—it would be better to conduct a quick operation. The initial steps would be the same as establishing a traditional no-fly zone—"wild weasel" style strikes launched from bases in Italy, Turkey and the Middle East to take out air defenses. Many of the Libyan threats are mobile SA-6 launchers, old but effective Russian gear that can knock workhorse U.S. and European airplanes out of the sky. These armaments would be threat in any scenario. And in any scenario, we would be bombing them, causing Libyan casualties: There's no such thing as a bloodless military intervention. But maintaining a no-fly zone would extend the most perilous part of the operation indefinitely. The Libyans would hide certain launchers and radar that could later take potshots at overhead U.S. planes policing the airspace.

If international forces were intent on crippling Libyan air power, instead of merely trying to contain it, the next step would be to target air bases, communication hubs and hangars. Runways could be pocked with craters, refueling depots immolated and repair depots wrecked. The Libyan Air Force would be neutralized, without constant warplane patrols overhead. Even if every airplane and helicopter were not destroyed, without supporting infrastructure, the regime's ability to attack civilians would be curtailed. (While the airplanes were dropping ordnance, military leaders might consider hitting any known chemical weapons depots as well. The regime reportedly still has tons in storage, despite Bush-era thaws in relations.)

So this is the bottom line: Denying the Libyan military access to the country's airspace is an act of war, in any case, and it does little good to pretend otherwise. If world leaders decide that military action is called for to prevent further bloodshed and anarchy, then it would be a good idea to conduct these strikes in the most effective way possible.

The downsides to any military operation are real: Charges of meddling from the Arab street and the possibility of actually bolstering civilian support for a despotic regime, the very real risk of civilian casualties, the financial burden and (if the U.N. didn't sign off on it) worldwide accusations that NATO was conducting an unlawful and expansionist war.

A surgical strike has another advantage over a no-fly zone commitment. It would be over quickly. In 1985, U.S. warplanes launched a retaliatory strike against Libya in response to that country's support of terrorist groups that targeted Americans abroad. The U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution that condemned "the military attack perpetrated against the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on 15 April 1986, which constitutes a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law."

And then the incident blew over and became tepid fodder for diplomats. It was pretty much forgotten until relations between U.S. and Libya were restored in 2008, when the two nations reached a settlement that routed money to families hurt in the air strikes, as well as U.S. victims of terrorist bombings sponsored by Libya. The lesson: Act fast and the backlash will fade more quickly.

In contrast, a no-fly zone is an ongoing military operation that would expose our forces to extended risks, and probably serve as a lightning rod for fear and resentment in the region for months or even years to come. If the choice is made to use military assets—and that's not a decision to take lightly—it would be prudent to choose the safest and quickest option available: targeted airstrikes.

He's mentally deranged
There's no cure for stupid.

Libya 'ready for ceasefire' after UN vote
March 18, 2011 - 2:49PM

Libya is ready for a ceasefire with the rebels battling Muammar Gaddafi, but wants to discuss how it will be implemented, deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaaim says.

‘‘We are ready for this decision (a ceasefire) but we require an interlocutor to discuss how to implement it,’’ Kaaim told a news conference shortly after the UN Security Council voted to permit ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to impose a no-fly zone, protect civilian areas and impose a ceasefire.

‘‘We discussed last night with the UN envoy (for Libya, Jordan’s Abdul Ilah Khatib) and asked legitimate questions on the application of a ceasefire,’’ he said.

Kaaim indicated that Libya would ‘‘react positively to the UN resolution, and we will prove this willingness while guaranteeing protection to civilians.’’

The Security Council authorised air strikes to halt Gaddafi’s offensive against embattled rebel forces in the North African country, with the first bombing raids possible within hours.

American broadcaster CNN also reports Gaddafi has changed tact with ‘‘a humanitarian gesture’’, deciding to hold off on plans to send the army in to Benghazi and mercilessly crush all resistance, as had been promised.

‘‘I just took a phone call from one of Gaddafi’s sons, Seif (al-Islam). This is the message from the leadership,’’ the CNN correspondent in Tripoli said.

‘‘He said they’re going to change the tactics around Benghazi, that the army is not going to go into Benghazi.

‘‘It’s going to take up positions around the stronghold.

‘‘The reason is they expect a humanitarian exodus.’’...... <cont>

We will be crazy too'

The UN resolution came just a few hours after Muammar Gaddafi, the embattled Libyan leader, warned residents of Benghazi that his forces would show "no mercy" in an impending assault on the city.

"The matter has been decided ... we are coming," he said in a radio address on Thursday.

The Libyan leader called pro-democracy fighters in Benghazi "armed gangsters" and urged residents to attack them, saying: "You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi.

"We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road ... Massive waves of people will be crawling out to rescue the people of Benghazi, who are calling out for help, asking us to rescue them. We should come to their rescue."

In an interview broadcast just before the Security Council voted on the resolution, Gaddafi dismissed the body's actions.

"The UN Security Council has no mandate. We don't acknowledge their resolutions," he told the Portuguese public Radiotelevisao Portuguesa.

He pledged to respond harshly to UN-sponsored attacks. "If the world is crazy, we will be crazy too," he said.

Speaking to reporters in Tripoli after the vote, Khalid Kaim, the Libyan deputy foreign minister, took a conciliatory tone, offering to negotiate a ceasefire with the rebels.

"We are ready for this decision [a ceasefire] but we require an interlocutor to discuss how to implement it," Kaim told a news conference.

"We discussed last night with the UN envoy [for Libya, Jordan's Abdul Ilah Khatib] and asked legitimate questions on the application of a ceasefire," he said.

Kaim indicated that Libya would "react positively to the UN resolution, and we will prove this willingness while guaranteeing protection to civilians."

Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, said "This resolution demands an immediate ceasefire and a complete end to violence and attacks against civilians.

"The security council has authorised the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Gaddafi, his intelligence and security forces and his mercenaries," Rice said.

However the UN resolution rules out sending foreign ground troops.

Earlier the Libyan defence ministry warned that "any military operation against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean to danger."

"Any civilian or military moving traffic will be the target of a Libyan counter-offensive," the official Jana news agency quoted the defence ministry spokesman as saying.

The United Nations has warned Bahrain that its violent crackdown on anti-government protesters might be breaking international law.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, called King Hamad of the Gulf state on Thursday to express his "deepest concern" about Bahrain''s use of force, which allegedly includes security forces preventing doctors from treating injured protesters.

The secretary-general, who called during a visit to Guatemala, "expressed his deepest concern over reports of excessive and indiscriminate use of force by the security forces and police in Bahrain against unarmed civilians, including, allegedly, against medical personnel," a UN statement said.

He also "noted that such actions could be in breach of international humanitarian and human rights law".

Valerie Amos, the UN''s deputy secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, earlier urged security forces "to refrain from excessive use of force, and to respect medical facilities and ensure the treatment of wounded persons".

Navi Pillay, the UN rights chief, said any takeover by the security forces of hospitals and medical facilities was a "blatant violation of international law... This is shocking and illegal conduct".

However the UN resolution rules out sending foreign ground troops.

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

The Qaddafi regime sent mixed signals after the announcement, with the deputy foreign minister indicating that a cease-fire would be observed if its details could be worked out. The minister of defense said that a ceasefire would begin Sunday (by which time, presumably, he expected to be in control of the whole country). At the same time, the ministry of defense issued a threat that if Libya were attacked, it would retaliate against air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean basin.

One strategy the Qaddafi regime could deploy would be to try to take the whole country quickly. A no-fly zone and even a ‘no-drive zone’ intended to protect the rebels would become irrelevant if all the rebel strongholds had fallen. Although some French sources are talking about air strikes on Libya by late Friday, other sources say Sunday is likely the earliest the UN-authorized forces could intervene. By then, some elements in Tripoli probably hope, the whole thing will be over with. In short, the rebels need to be able to survive on their own two or three brutal days.

It is not clear whether Qaddafi’s forces have already taken Misrata near Tripoli in the West, a city of 600,000, or whether parts of it are still in rebel hands (Aljazeera Arabic maintains the latter). Qaddafi’s forces are battling for contol of Ajdabiya in the middle of the country, from which they could quickly advance on Benghazi. They even allegedly made a foray on Tobruk in the far west before being beaten off.

I think the threat launched by the ministry of defense, of essentially turning to large-scale terrorism in the Mediterranean, has sealed the fate of the regime. No government that speaks that way will be allowed by the powers of the Greater Mediterranean.

Qaddafi is almost completely isolated in the region, a bad sign for him. His survival would not have been good for the new reform governments in Tunisia and Egypt. Having an authoritarian who sent tanks against his protesters, and who has billions in oil wealth, as a neighbor would be very inconvenient for reformists on either side of Libya, whom Qaddafi would try to undermine.

Qaddafi’s old friend Silvio Berlusconi of Italy has offered Italian bases to France, Britain, Norway, Canada, the US and the gathering UN-backed coalition. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates may well fly fighter jets over Libya on behalf of the Arab League. Russia and China, which abstained from the UNSC vote, are distant and not involved. Algeria is probably getting out of the way lest any opprobrium fall on Algiers.

If Qaddafi falls, and a new government emerges with parliamentary commitments and a rule of law, all of North Africa will have seen substantial reforms. Morocco is moving toward being a constitutional monarchy. Algeria has lifted the state of emergency declared in 1992. Tunisia and Egypt have overthrown their dictators and announced new elections and the prospect of new constitutions. Algeria has gone least far toward reform, but the regional atmosphere is turning decisively against such foot-dragging.

What happens in the next 72 hours is fateful for Libya but will have wider repercussions throughout the region, for better or worse.