LIBYA

I am worried about Libya. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not yet at the point where I unreservedly think it was the wrong decision; but I'll state my worries nonetheless.

Although the coalition of the willing have (in contrast to Iraq) managed to get their legal ducks lined up this time round, the U.N. resolution empowering a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians is nonetheless to a certain extent vague. It specifically rules out the use of an "occupying force". Does that however allow for ground troops that have no intention of occupying Libya? Special forces sent to carry out hit and run raids spring to mind.

When politicians, with President Sarkozy in the forefront, start talking about "moral duty" and "historic decisions", I begin to get twitchy. We should remember that less than three months ago, France's apparent moral duty was to offer the support of its special forces to the Tunisian Government, so that it could better suppress peaceful demonstrators. Changing tack is not necessarily a bad thing; but there is a danger of hasty overreaction in the opposite direction.

Colonel Gadaffi is undoubtedly a bad man. But he is certainly not the only Government leader in this world, to whom one could attach that label. Why is the world not operating a no-fly zone in (say) Ivory Coast, which already has U.N. peacekeepers on the ground? Or Zimbabwe? Or Belarus? The answers to the last two are probably that it is not possible, and that Russia would veto any proposed U.N. resolution. Does that mean, then, that Libya is "on" simply because it can be done from Europe, and the Colonel is not liked enough for someone to raise a veto at the U.N.? And if that is true, why are we talking about morality, when really it is a question of practicalities?

There have already been casualties from Cruise missile and air attacks. Are these all nasty, die-hard supporters of the regime, or have we already seen the first signs of "collateral damage", the euphemism for innocents being caught in the crossfire. Will there be much more of that sort of thing? Yes, almost certainly. How much more could there be before our "moral duty" starts to look tarnished? Nobody knows. Or, at least, nobody is saying.  

As in other wars, we don't know many of the details. Yet this is a crisis, so the 24-hour news networks have to cover it relentlessly, including interviews with military types - either current or former - who can explain exactly what an F16 can do to a tank column and how. What unnerves me is the way these guys (and they are always guys) light up when it comes to talking about firepower, they look a bit like I did when I was 7 years old and desperately wanted a Johnny 7 for Christmas. Is there anyone with a restraining finger on these various buttons, or is it all gung-ho?

Finally, what is the end-game in all of this? Air power will ensure that Colonal Gaddafi can't reconquer and terrorise the east of his country. But that might simply leave the two halves fairly entrenched, and ready to settle down for the sort of low-level civil war that has plagued other African countries for so many years; remember that Rwanda didn't require tanks and planes, machetes and clubs were enough. Such a status quo might be unacceptable to the coalition powers, particularly if it resulted in a steady trickle of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean from the fighting. Is there a danger of mission creep here?

I don't have the answers to all of these questions. However, I do have the answer to one. Am I worried? You bet.

Walter Blotscher