Confusion remains as Nato takes charge in Libya
Nato takes command of the no-fly zone but the US will remain in charge of air strikes.
By George Eaton Published 25 March 2011 10:58
Confusion and uncertainty continue to plague the mission in Libya. Nato has agreed to take command of the no-fly zone, but in order to placate Turkey, the US will remain in charge of air stikes on Colonel Gaddafi's ground forces. Ankara is understandably reluctant to play any part in a bombing campaign that could lead to heavy civilian casualties in a Muslim-majority country.
For now, the allies are urging greater patience. They argue, reasonably enough, that the mission has already succeeded on its own terms by preventing a slaughter of civilians in Benghazi. But it remains entirely unclear what will happen if the operation results not, as hoped, in the fall of Gaddafi, but in a military stalemate.
As Max Hastings writes in today's Financial Times, the armed forces fear that the coalition has failed to meet the key test before launching any intervention: "defining clear and attainable objectives". There is no appetite to deploy ground troops or to police an indefinite no-fly zone, akin to the one that held in Iraq for 12 years. With this in mind, American officials are still reportedly exploring the possibility of a negotiated settlement between Gaddafi and the rebels.
Elsewhere, in today's Daily Telegraph, Malcolm Rifkind, who remains one of the most influential voices on foreign affairs in the Commons, argues that the coalition must arm the rebels. He writes:
[T]here is a third arm of the strategy, without which the others will have only modest impact: the overt or covert supply of military equipment to the insurgents. Even without aircraft, Gaddafi has a massive advantage over the opposition with his tanks and heavy artillery. It is difficult to see how he can be overthrown in the short to medium term unless there is a massive popular rising in Tripoli or a mass defection of his army to the insurgents. Neither is impossible, but nor can either be assumed given the fear that Gaddafi still inspires.
But many fear this could trigger a protracted civil war. What we can say with certainty is that few believe the coalition's ad-hoc approach is sustainable.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















7 comments
Its time to Send in the ground troops ... Saudis, or The Arab League ... but not Nato troops. Oly the Arabs can decide the complexion of their Region, not us.
This is an unfair 'war', the vast arsenal and hitech gadgetry at the disposal of Nato makes it very one sided.
I was slightly perturbed last night on QT to hear Danny Alexander when questioned about financing the no fly zone say that no money would be demanded of the public to finance- quote - "the war in Libya"....I didn't realise we were at war in Libya, I thought ours was a humanitarian mission. Is there something we aren't being told?
swatantra nandanwar, Would you prefer if the tyrants and despots of the world had 'vast arsenal and hi-tech gadgetry' where would your liberal-principles be then? What many on the fantasist-left, don't understand, it's men of violence that keeps them safe in their beds!!
Er I think many tyrants and despots do have the hi tech gadgetry and vast arsenal, it was kindly sold to them by the West amongst other items like chemical weapons with Gaddafi being a perfect example of a despised despot being armed to the hilt by the West.
Another example would be Obama waiving legislation that strictly prohibits the sale of arms to countries using child soldiers in order to sell weaponry to Yemen, Chad, Congo and Sudan. So now Yemen is currently killing it's own people with weapons sold to them illegally by the USA, Syria is killing it's people with US and UK weapons, Bahrain.....the list goes on and the rank hypocrisy of the West is shameful.
Lou doesn't China and North Korea make and sell arms? and when did the AK47 have a a made in the USA. label? or i almost forgot, Iran make a mean rocket asked the Israelis.
Wider point taken Luddite but in context to Libya then my point still stands.
And yep actually...AK47s,AR15,Uzis & a whole host of assualt weaponry were sold to Libya by the US and Uk arms traders.
To all commentators justice is key word upon which everething should be base.
Things are not always black and white since grey do exist.
War against a groupe of people for wordly,financial,economic gain of the few is evil.
The event of Japan should be a lessons for everyone because the decree of the ever powerful the creator of all comes no one can overturn it.
How far do you think you will get with this greed to accumulate wordly things and disregarding the injunction of Justice in all?
Carry on if which but remember arrogant,tyrant,terrorist,oppressor,liar,deception all will never succeed.
But truth,justice will always prevails.
Finally let's remember that there is more to what eyes sees.
I invite all of us to aim for justice not greed nor deceiving.
Thank you all