military action against Libya

The resolution made pretty clear that it isn't. Very strong language precludes the use of this resolution to provide air support for a rebel counter-offensive.

But I don't think this is going to be the last resolution.

The following is from CNN's Q & A on the no-fly resolution:



So, according to this gentleman, the resolution could be interpreted to allow air strikes against Kadaffi's ground forces if there is an allegation that civilians are threatened.

According to CBC, Kadaffi's forces have advanced 50 kilometers today, despite the announcement of a cease fire. Their report says that civilians have been killed, and that Kadaffi is advancing on Bengazi, and that his announcement was just intended to buy time while he snaps up as many of the petroleum facilities possible before the no-fly zone is actually implemented.

CBC also states that Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have joined the coalition (what exactly that means is anybody's guess) and that they support the no-fly zone.

the Global National speculates that he could ground his planes, but continue with ground forces, surround Behngazi (sp) and starve the city before any coalition force is established

They were just talking to a Brit Colonel who served in Bosnia, and according to him this a Chapter Seven resolution, which, if true, gives the "coalition of the willing" (as it's now being called) full military powers. It could be interpreted to mean that they could attack his forces if he tries to do that. It's about midnight there--the crucial period will be the next 12 hours. Will anyone be in a position to do anything as the sun comes up in about six hours? Will anyone do anything.

Here's Wikipedia's explanation of Chapter Seven of the UN charter and its implications.

A lot depends on just how "willing" they are. The track record to date with respect to Libya and the aggressiveness shown in operations of potential contributors in Afghanistan doesn't provide much basis for optimism. The French may be an exception to all this though.

The operational details could be fascinating. The nearest NATO base is near Catania Sicily (several hundred miles away), but I am doubtful the Italians will wish to be directly involved. The French have a small nuclear carrier, and one of ours (Enterprise) is enroute. That would be the easiest option, though I seriously doubt our military commanders would want to see a carrier stiuck in the Gulf of Sidra for an extended period.

Will the participants make use of available airfields in Egypt or Tunis? The still unstable political situations in both countries makes that a bit unlikely as well. Will the Arab League contribute any forces? Again I am skeptical. Perhaps they will try to seize an airfield in the eastern, rebel held area of Libya and base coalition forces there - there is an old British airfield near Bengazi (El Adam or something like that), and the former Wheelus air force base farther west in Libya.

As i noted earlier, Qatar and the UAE have "joined the coalition" and said that they support the no-fly zone. I don't know if any other Arab nations will step up to the plate. If CBC is correct that Kadaffi continues to press his attack despite spouting the bullshit about a cease fire, something will have to happen tomorrow morning, or it may well be too late.

I see i screwed up with the URL for that article. I'll try that again.

The Wikipedia article on Chapter Seven of the United Nations Charter.

I agree. As a minimum the force and committment required to make a difference grows with each passing day.

BBC is now reporting that fighting continues on the outskirts of Bengazi. The reporter was speaking from Bengazi, and you could hear the gun fire in the distance. CBC reports that the PM, Harper, is flying to Paris for a conference on implementing the no-fly zone. They're going to diddle-f*ck around and blow this yet.

I'm reading with interest, have done my usual rounds (Andrew Sullivan, TPM, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, nytimes, etc.) and still don't know what I think, exactly. So not weighing in yet.

Certainly hope that as little *******-up as possible happens, though things don't look very good.

They'll probably send money - not aircraft & pilots.

You also have the situation where there are two factions fighting a civil war, so who are the "civilians" we are trying to protect? If the Libyan army rolls into town and people shoot at them, do we protect them? If the rebels try to go on the offensive, do we protect them then? What if some of the cities under rebel control decide they would rather be with the loyalists? Helping one side in a civil war is a tough proposition. We helped Kosovo against the Serbs and it seems to have worked out so it can be done, but I thought the threat of military action there precipitated events instead of controlling them.

Possibly. On the other hand, political support for Ghadaffi in Libya could conceivably evaporate very quickly if they see truly determined support. Hard to tell. Apart from the carriers, I'm having a hard time seeing how they will do this thing.

If it's true that they are going to be allowed to operate out of Italian fields, they could have planes in the air at dawn. I ain't holdin' my breath.

Kosovo was also fought against the backdrop of the horrendous atrocities in Bosnia. It wasn't hard to tell the players in that one, if for no other reason than that the Bosnians didn't have a coherent militaryforce in the field. I've seen commentarywhich says that the use of a Chapter Seven resolution could even go so far as supporting "rebel" operations against Got-Daffy's army. Your point about taking sides in a civil war is well taken.

While it was clear from the Bosnian War that Milošević was a true bad actor, the worst atrocities in Serbia and Kosovo occurred once it was clear that NATO was going to intervene for the KLA. The KLA was also known for war crimes against Serbs, so I never thought intervention was all that clear cut, but the point is that if Kadafi thinks the UN is going to essentially act to prevent him from unifying the country, there is really nothing stopping him from going berserk like Milošević did.

I don't know that that's entirely true. All of the actors in the Bosnian and Kosovo atrocities seem to have believed that they were somehow immune. I can see that to a point with Milosevic, who probably believed that Serbia would not be attacked, and that the Serb people would never turn him over to an international tribunal. For Karadsic and the other Bosnian Serbs who were charged with war crimes, though, it was incredible hubris, or stupidity, or both. The atocities in Kosovo were just so far off the scale of what anyone else--Bosnians, Croatians or Kosovars--did to the Serbs, that it isn't hard to come down on the side of their victims. About 2000 victims were found in mass graves in Serbia itself, and at Srebrenica (sp?), there were about 8000 victims in that one incident--i doubt that all the other actors combined were guilty of 10,000 murders.

The Libyan situation is much different, though. This is not a case of attacking a despised ethnic or religious minority. Additionally, there is nowhere for Kadaffi to run to and hide, unless he gives up and flees the country. (Once again, i feel certain that Milosevic thought he was untouchable as long as he remained in Serbia.) Kadaffi is not that stupid. For all that he's a monster, he's a clever one. I'm not sure that he'll want to create a situation in which no nation will have him, and in which there will be nowhere for him to run to if he is driven from power. Of course, we both only speculate.