Libya war: Floundering ever deeper in the swamp
Telling the world that British officers being dispatched to the rebel camp in Libya will serve as ‘advisers’ was never a smart idea. A chorus of voices immediately recalled that this was how the U.S. involvement in Vietnam began, which ended with repatriation of 60,000 American bodybags.
There is no danger that Libya will become our Vietnam. Today’s British Army would struggle to muster 60,000 fighting soldiers. The truth is that Britain’s military cupboard is practically bare.
But Defence Secretary Liam Fox’s careless, if not reckless, words yesterday, when he compared Libya to Afghanistan and suggested that we were preparing to undertake a long-term military training mission to empower the Libyan rebels to look after their own security, shows the Government still floundering deeper into the swamp it has entered.
Suffering: Mohammed Muftah, nine, who lost his tongue after being hit by shrapnel in Misrata
David Cameron and France’s president Nicolas Sarkozy cooked up the notion of sending military ‘advisers’ to Libya at their meeting last week. Initially it was proposed to keep the mission secret, but on Tuesday the British government recognised the impossibility of achieving this, and thus the plan was announced.
The officers’ real task is to see what on earth we might do to get ourselves out of an unholy mess.
At the moment, Nato bombing is providing enough military support to save the rebels from defeat – but nowhere near enough to win the civil war.
To the bewilderment of military chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic, last week Barack Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy asserted that the only acceptable outcome is for President Gaddafi to quit. But how this is to be achieved without sending in Nato ground troops – a ghastly idea – the Lord alone knows.
‘We are living a lie by pretending that we have the means to win this militarily,’ said a senior Nato officer this week.
Wars: Defence Secretary Liam Fox compared Libya to Afghanistan
David Cameron was powerfully influenced in his determination to lead a Western intervention in Libya by memories of what happened in Bosnia in the 1990s. One of his team last week described to me as ‘disgraceful’ the British government’s reluctance to act then, when thousands of civilians were being slaughtered. That may be, I said, but there were very real problems: President Clinton refused to send ground troops to Bosnia, and our European partners were twiddling their thumbs.
And so it was in Libya last month that Britain and France, with reluctant and limited American support, set about doing a good deed in a naughty world.
Unfortunately they failed to recognise the need to match their purpose to the means available to achieve it. Thus today, we find ourselves backing a shambolic rebel army quite incapable of achieving victory against Gaddafi without much more help than it is getting.
And the Tripoli regime’s troops are showing more determination than anyone credited them with. Western intelligence about Libya is pathetically thin, but a broad truth emerges: while the rebels represent the coastal tribes, the inland tribes still seem loyal to Gaddafi.
We have thrown in our lot not with the cause of freedom but with the weaker side in an Arab civil war.
David Cameron is insistent that, since we have not invaded or occupied Libya, we do not have a political responsibility for it. However, I think he is wrong.
From the moment we started bombing, every senior soldier I know on both sides of the Atlantic took it for granted that we had picked up the burden of what happens to the country hereafter.
The Western Powers have declared their commitment to regime-change – very rashly, I suggested from the outset. Now, they are impaled on harsh choices.
There is loose talk about ‘arming the rebels’. But that does not simply mean throwing rifles on the back of trucks. Libyans would need to be trained and organised – a long job which would need British and French instructors.
Moreover, I do not believe the Americans will send troops – something most of our European partners are equally unwilling to do. To provide effective close air support, Nato aircraft need forward controllers to be positioned with the rebel troops, especially in city areas. They, in turn, would have to be protected by special forces.
Similarities: News that British officers are being sent to Libya sparked reminders that this was how the U.S. involvement in Vietnam began
Prominent Lib Dems such as Lord Owen and Lord Ashdown are enthusiastic about sending a Nato ground force to protect Misrata.
But all these proposals – ‘mission creep’, or rather escalation on a grand scale – are utterly crazy.
Sending in a few allied soldiers would increase our exposure without altering outcomes. Alternatively, committing a major ground force would split Nato, many of whose members have refused to participate in the bombing. It could also produce a dramatic surge of emotion and anger in the Arab world about ‘Western imperialism’.
The truth is that there are no good options for us in the hole that is Libya, but at least we should stop digging.
There is still a real chance that Gaddafi will fall, though it could be a nightmare task to stop Libyans killing each other during a struggle for the succession to power.
Nato should continue bombing, while launching an immediate search for a compromise settlement, perhaps based on de facto partition of the country.
Destroyed: A rocket-propelled grenade nombards a building occupied by Gaddafi forces in Misrata, Libya
Most of us would like to see Gaddafi end his days in a sack. But it seems wholly mistaken for the West’s leaders to cling to their insistence on removing him, while lacking the military means or international support to achieve this.
The United States, which allowed itself most reluctantly to be persuaded by Britain and France to get stuck in here, will soon turn sour. Meanwhile, Muslim opinion, always volatile, could become bitterly hostile.
The longer this bloody business drags on, the more willing the world will become to blame Britain for the humanitarian tragedy, for which we chose to assume responsibility, rather than Gaddafi who is of course the perpetrator.
Finally, there is another, British dimension. As a strong supporter of the Cameron government’s domestic programme, which faces plentiful difficulties of its own, I regret that the Prime Minister has chosen to take such risks in Libya, where Britain has no vital interest.
To link up with President Sarkozy, Europe’s midget buffoon, was a folly. Honourable and moral Cameron’s commitment to Libya may be, but I hope it does not cost him dear.
This week’s dispatch of a handful of British officers to the rebel camp in Libya will do no harm if they merely look, listen, advise and come home. But the Government will up the stakes and commit more forces to Libya at its peril.
If, for instance, ministers encourage the Qataris to fund British private security companies – mercenaries – to pile in and support the rebels, I for one will assume Downing Street has lost its head. That option would confer on Britain responsibility without control, and a stall seat at a horror movie.
We have got ourselves into a fine tangle. Our objective now should be to escape from our folly through a political deal, not a military victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment