Rainblog

How do you know when you really have no friends? Answer: when not even the Russians and the Chinese can be bothered to exercise their permanent member veto to save your braid-covered dictatorial ass.

If Colonel Gaddafi were given to introspection, he might now be pondering how he could have screwed up so badly that the British and the French and the Americans were able to push through Security Council Resolution 1973. Ten members voted in favor; five abstained, diplomatic code for “we don’t want to be seen approving of this, but our disapproval doesn’t even extend to casting a ‘no’ vote”. And 1973 is not an anodyne resolution by any means: instead of just mandating a relatively toothless ‘no-fly’ zone, Resolution 1973 authorizes the interested parties to:

take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack

You could sail an entire battlegroup through that ‘necessary measures’ phrase, and there’s some reason to think that those involved may do just that. The resolution also stresses that

those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account

which is diplomatic shorthand for “Your ass is grass, Muammar”.

This not only puts the lie to my gloomy predictions of the other day, it goes further than anything I had imagined possible - at least on paper.

The resolution rules out “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory” but that’s not a concession: none of the motion’s backers wants to put ‘boots on the ground’ (with the possible exception of special forces units to act as forward air controllers). It’s no part of their plan to get dragged into another Iraq-style meatgrinder, fighting a faceless enemy at ground level in built-up areas. What we may well see instead are a certain number of ‘bombs on airfields’, in the guise of ‘necessary measures’. The BBC reports: 

It is not thought that the US would be involved in the first strikes, but the British and French are likely to get logistical backup from Arab allies. There were reports military action could come soon.

‘Logistical backup’ may mean use of airfields, and while the US may not be directly involved, it’s almost certain that US intelligence and surveillance (probably in the form of AWACS aircraft and satellites) will be used to guide French or British aircraft attacking Libyan targets. 

 To enforce the resolution, the British and French must be confident that they can - if necessary - destroy Gaddafi’s planes, helicopters and tanks without sustaining significant losses themselves. That in turn requires that they can neutralize whatever Libya may have in the form of an air defense network. The French and the British may have a technological edge over the Libyans, but tactical doctrine says that you pick the engagements where you can bring to bear not just superior but overwhelming force. If European warplanes enter Libyan airspace, they will do so with all the technical know-how of the US behind them.

It’s probably the beginning of the end for Gaddafi. If he can’t use his aviation or armor, he can’t mount a serious offensive against the rebels. If he can’t mount an offensive, the crisis that he thought he could resolve by crushing his opponents isn’t going to go away. If he passes up the opportunity to step down gracefully and elects to make a bloody last stand in Tripoli, his foreign enemies may just take the necessary measure of dropping a bomb on his head. By now, many of his supporters in the military must be rapidly reviewing the shifting odds and giving thought to changing sides. His position, which seemed unpleasantly strong less than a day ago, looks very much weaker tonight.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, really.

In the movie “Three Kings”, Archie Gates (George Clooney) sums up the political situation in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War with the words:

Bush told the people to rise up against Saddam. They thought they’d have our support. They don’t. Now they’re getting slaughtered.

There’s room for debate over whether supporting the Iraqi uprisings would have been a good idea - it would probably have led to sectarian killings and ethnic cleansing on a huge scale, and might well have split the country three ways, so US reluctance to get involved is at least understandable. Still, the rebels did believe that they’d have foreign support, in part because that’s what the international community - particularly the US - let them believe. When they didn’t get it, they and their families died in vast numbers, and Saddam remained in power until the US finally mounted a hugely expensive war to get rid of him.

Fast forward just over twenty years and some more rebels have just learned that they don’t have our support. The international community, in its wisdom, has decided that any kind of decisive intervention in Libya is not warranted and has limited itself to the equivalent of sending a strongly-worded letter. The rebels, militarily weaker than Gaddafi’s oil-funded military, are being pushed back. If you need to be reminded what happens next, think back to 1991.

Gaddafi may look like a figure of fun, with his preposterous dress-up uniforms, his barkingly-insane speeches and grandiose public works projects, his put-away-wet physiognomy and his unwise personal grooming choices. He isn’t. He is a vicious thug. Frankly, I don’t care if he did or did not sign off on the Lockerbie bombing: what he has done to his own people is ample grounds for hanging him by his heels from his palace gate.

I’m not normally hawkish on foreign interventions. Unlike those who actually have the power to command them, I’d never try to pretend that they are easy or uncomplicated. But in the past few weeks, a window of opportunity in which we could have crossed off another villain briefly opened up. Thanks to the inability of the international community to display even the appearance of decisiveness, that window has probably closed. Gaddafi was weak; a show of real resolve could probably have toppled him. When that show never came, he fought back and now he’s getting stronger every day.

We know what comes next because we’ve seen how a dictator consolidates his rule after a rebellion. Tens of thousands will flee, creating a refugee problem that the international community, in its goodness, will also fail to solve. Of those who remain, many will be tortured or killed. If things really go south, a good friend of mine may be among them.

The miraculous thing in all this is that would-be rebels still believe that, when push comes to shove, the rich countries will come down on their side. Granted, it’s almost never happened before, certainly never in a timely fashion. But this time, they must say to themselves, it will be different. Our dictator has been a thorn in everyone’s side for years: surely, this time the rest of the world will act.

But once again, they are wrong. Once again, we will dither. And once again, they will die.