Allies divided over goals and command structure of Libya mission

Speed at which coalition was assembled begins to show, with uncertainty over regime change and futur

After a third night of air strikes on Libya, cracks are appearing in the hastily assembled international alliance over the goals and command structure of the mission.

Yesterday, both William Hague and David Cameron refused to rule out targeting Muammar al-Gaddafi, even as the head of the British armed forces said that the colonel was "absolutely not" a target.

This apparent contradiction between politicians and the military has been mirrored in other Allied countries. The head of the US Africa Command, General Carter F Ham, said attacking Gaddafi was not part of his mission. However, Mark Toner, the US state department spokesman, said that regime change "remains our ultimate goal".

Barack Obama argued that this was not contradictory because the military were restricted to fulfilling the UN mandate to protect civilians, while the White House could apply political and diplomatic pressure on the Libyan leader to step down.

France – the other main driver behind the no-fly zone – experienced a similar dispute. A military spokesman said that even if Gaddafi's exact location were known, he would not be targeted. However, Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, said that he hoped attacks would topple the dictator, causing the regime to "fall apart from within".

This is a fundamental disagreement about the goal of the mission – between the explicit, mandated aim of protecting civilians and the underlying desire for regime change, which has echoes of Iraq – and one that must be worked out.

A separate fault line is the future role of Nato. Obama said that the US would hand over the command of the no-fly zone "in a matter of days". However, a meeting of Nato ambassadors ended last night without agreement about who would take control. Turkey refused to back a mission that puts civilians at risk.

Given the speed at which action was taken, it was inevitable that some divisions would emerge. However, it is vital that these strategic difficulties are resolved as soon as possible, to establish an exit strategy and to avoid protracted action and losing Libyan support for the mission.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

An alternative Trainspotting script for John Humphrys’ Radio 4 “Choose Life” tribute

Born chippy.

Your mole often has Radio 4’s Today programme babbling away comfortingly in the background while emerging blinking from the burrow. So imagine its horror this morning, when the BBC decided to sully this listening experience with John Humphrys doing the “Choose Life” monologue from Trainspotting.

“I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you’ve got Radio 4?” he concluded, as a nation cringed.

Introduced as someone who has “taken issue with modernity”, Humphrys launched into the film character Renton’s iconic rant against the banality of modern life.

But Humphrys’ role as in-studio curmudgeon is neither endearing nor amusing to this mole. Often tasked with stories about modern technology and digital culture by supposedly mischievous editors, Humphrys sounds increasingly cranky and ill-informed. It doesn’t exactly make for enlightening interviews. So your mole has tampered with the script. Here’s what he should have said:

“Choose life. Choose a job and then never retire, ever. Choose a career defined by growling and scoffing. Choose crashing the pips three mornings out of five. Choose a fucking long contract. Choose interrupting your co-hosts, politicians, religious leaders and children. Choose sitting across the desk from Justin Webb at 7.20 wondering what you’re doing with your life. Choose confusion about why Thought for the Day is still a thing. Choose hogging political interviews. Choose anxiety about whether Jim Naughtie’s departure means there’s dwindling demand for grouchy old men on flagship political radio shows. Choose a staunch commitment to misunderstanding stories about video games and emoji. Choose doing those stories anyway. Choose turning on the radio and wondering why the fuck you aren’t on on a Sunday morning as well. Choose sitting on that black leather chair hosting mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows (Mastermind). Choose going over time at the end of it all, pishing your last few seconds on needlessly combative questions, nothing more than an obstacle to that day’s editors being credited. Choose your future. Choose life . . .”

I'm a mole, innit.