LIBYA (2)

If you are going to go to war, then one absolute pre-condition is to decide in advance who is in charge of it, right? After all, people have known that since at least the time of the Romans.

Apparently not. The coalition of the willing, that is enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya/actively helping the anti-Gaddafi rebels/trying to implement regime change (take your pick), has been led since last Saturday's start by the Americans. Only they had the material and intelligence resources to act quickly enough to prevent Gaddafi's forces from reaching the rebel-held stronghold of Benghazi. Yet because of a combination of domestic economic problems (how can we finance a third foreign war, when our Congress can't even pass a budget?) and a sensitivity towards the other Arab nations (is this just Iraq and Afghanistan all over again?), President Obama is desperate to pass the baton of leadership to somebody else. But to whom? Nato? France and Britain? France alone?

It is here that the neatly tied diplomatic packaging of the U.N. resolution authorising the no-fly zone starts to unravel. Start with the fact that the vote in the 15-country Security Council was not unanimous, but 10-0; five countries abstained, and they were Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany. The last is particularly relevant, since the Germans are also members of Nato, the obvious candidate to take over leadership of an operation just across the water from Europe. Nato also includes Turkey, which has close links with the Arab world, which in turn has long taken the view that Nato is merely a creature of American expansionist ambitions. Throw in the apparent desire of France to "make a splash" after its previous mistakes over Tunisia and Egypt, coupled with its long-standing suspicion of Nato's collective structures, and it quickly becomes clear that there is no agreement about who should take over command from the U.S. There have been meetings in Nato headquarters in Belgium during the past few days, but no acceptable compromise has been found; indeed, nothing will be decided before a new meeting of coalition members in London on Monday.

If it takes so much effort merely to decide who should be in charge, how on earth can the coalition members agree on the operation's goals, which are still very unclear. As I said in my earlier piece, what is the end-game here? Nobody appears to know. 

Finally, an irony. Not long ago, Barack Obama won the Nobel prize for peace. Today, he finds himself in charge of at least three wars. No wonder he wants to rid himself of at least one of them.

Walter Blotscher