Libya: Initial Operation a Success but Questions Remain

The military actions against Col. Muammar al-

Qaddafi over the past several days have widely been
described as a success but the goals of the overall
mission have raised a number of thorny questions that
the international community has yet to answer.

After a Tomahawk cruise missile strike on the Bab al-

Azizia government compound in Tripoli on Sunday
evening, some are questioning whether coalition forces are attempting to kill Qaddafi
and essentially institute regime change or rather downgrade Qaddafi’s military
capabilities. Gen. Carter F. Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, and the current
head of coalition military operations over Libya, pushed back at suggestions that the
attack on Bab al-Azizia was because of its close proximity to Qaddafi’s residence. Gen.
Ham suggested that the attack was because the compound housed air-defense systems
and was viewed to be part of Qaddafi’s overall command and control capabilities.

The general suggested that by attacking the facility “the regime’s ability to control its
military forces in the attack on civilians” has been diminished even further.

Addressing the charge that coalition forces are targeting Col. Qaddafi, Vice Adm. Bill
Gortney said, “At this particular point, I can guarantee that he’s not on a targeting
list.” Vice Adm. Gortney continued, “If he happens to be in a place – if he’s inspecting
a surface-to-air missile site, [and] we don’t have any idea that he’s there or not – then,
yeah.”

A number of experts and U.S. policymakers have expressed reservations that the
overall aim of the mission is ambiguous. On President Obama’s political left, members
of Congress have expressed unhappiness that they were not consulted before the
military campaign began. In particular, Democratic House members and some
Republicans have argued that the president usurped Congress’s war making power as
established in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. On the political right, some
have expressed reservations that the overall mission does not go far enough in
insuring Qaddafi’s downfall from airstrikes by coalition warplanes, rebels advancing
on Tripoli or by one of Qaddafi’s cohorts. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told host Chris
Wallace on FOX News Sunday, “We should isolate this regime. We should order all
troops back to their garrison. We should knock out his radio and TV ability to
communicate with his own people. We shouldn’t pay Qaddafi’s forces any money
when it comes to Libyan oil.” Further, the senator suggested that the U.S. should
“Isolate, strangle and replace this man — that should be our goal.”

The U.S. is expected to hand over control of the mission to NATO within the next few
days. Speaking to reporters during a press conference from Santiago, Chile, President
Obama said, “We anticipate this transition to take place in a matter of days and not a
matter of weeks.” The administration is attempting to address concerns, voiced by
some, that the U.S. military is too far stretched with troop commitments in
Afghanistan and Iraq. With command and control being handled by NATO this will
validate the claim by the administration that the Libyan no-fly zone is an international
effort and the U.S. is acting in a support capacity. Qatar is expected to follow through
on its commitment to the enforcement of the no-fly zone and several other nations’
fighter jets have arrived in support of the no-fly zone, in particular Denmark and
Canada.

Despite domestic political problems associated with the mission, U.S. and coalition
forces have been successful in downgrading Libyan military capabilities. Gen. Carter
F. Ham told reporters during a news conference from Stuttgart, Germany, “I assess
that our actions to date are generally achieving the intended objectives.” Gen. Ham
continued, “We have not observed Libyan military aircraft operating since the
beginning of coalition operations.”

The coalition air sorties and cruise missile attacks have succeeded in destroying
Libyan air defense systems and some ground units that had threatened civilians and
rebel groups in Benghazi and elsewhere. Gen. Ham has said, “we are now seeing
regime forces moving southward from Benghazi…Through a variety of reports, we
know that regime ground forces that were in the vicinity of Benghazi now possess
little will or capability to resume offensive operations.”

Mobile surface-to-air missile batteries will continue to put American and coalition
fighter jets in danger as a number of these batteries are still in operation. These missile
batteries were not targeted in the first 48 hours of the coalition air campaign. Vice
Adm. Bill Gortney said “There are quite a few of those out there.” Because these units
are not stationary the risk to civilians is greater if coalition forces target these units
because they can be positioned closer to civilians.
Due to the success of the air campaign of the past 48 hours, the no-fly zone will now
be expanded to encompass Tripoli and surrounding areas including the cities of Brega
and to Misrata. This development will put strains on the coalition. Although Libya is a
not a massive country, enforcing a no-fly zone is a 24-hour endeavor. Typically, two
fighter planes must fly in tandem and must also be supported by air, ground and ship
based radar systems to track enemy movements if Qaddafi is in violation of the U.N.
resolution.

As President Obama returns from his South American soiree he finds himself in a
politically untenable situation. While public support for the no-fly zone runs relatively
high, political support on Capitol Hill is harder to gauge. According to recent polling
by CNN, 70% favor a no-fly zone while 27% oppose U.S. involvement.

Congress is increasingly exhausted by Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. The president
will have to portray U.S. engagement in Libya as necessary. While the president has
ruled out the use of American ground troops, U.S. involvement in the region is
significant. The U.S. military has repositioned several warships and fighter aircraft
have participated in a significant number of the sorties over Libya.

Prominent foreign policy experts on Capitol Hill like Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and
Dick Lugar (R-IN) have expressed their opposition to even a limited U.S. engagement
and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has even suggested that the president’s
actions might be considered impeachable. President Obama must reach out to Webb
and Lugar and convince them of the necessity of U.S. involvement or face blowback in
the months ahead.

Opposition from Rep. Kucinich and others like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is less
detrimental because they have generally opposed any and all use of U.S. military
power except in rare instances. Although there are prominent opponents of U.S.
military involvement, the president does have the support of a significant number of
other Senators and Congressmen. Senators McCain, Liebermann and Graham have
expressed support for U.S. engagement.

Speaker John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have also spoken favorably of U.S. actions
despite some reservations about the overall mission objectives. Mr. Boehner’s office
released the following statement shortly after the air campaign began, “The United
States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression
and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to
attack his own people, and the violence must stop. The President is the commander-in-
chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people,
the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what
America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be
accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration
must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about
our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.” Long-term U.S. engagement will
prove difficult unless the president can address various concerns voiced by
lawmakers.

As the coalition mission proceeds, the international community will have to define its
end-goals in Libya.

John Lyman is the Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Affairs Journal.