I just listened to the President’s speech defending American intervention in Libya. I found it powerful and well reasoned, but less than compelling. However, while listening to the speech, a thought came to me that shows there are complications to the situation that he has failed to address and which point to a flaw in the American position. The question that came to me is simply this: what about Sirte?
Sirte is a city on the Mediterranean lying on the coastal road between Tripoli and Benghazi. It is the birthplace of Gaddafi, and is a pro-government stronghold. According to reports in the Guardian, rebel forces are moving in from the East to take the city. Gaddafi, meanwhile, has been massing troops there to defend the city, which is regarded as key both militarily and politically. At this point it is reasonable to assume that the rebels will assault the city in an attempt to drive out pro-Gaddafi forces.
When that happens, what about the civilians still in the city? Urban warfare almost always produces civilian casualties—often large numbers, even if they are not directly targeted. A sustained battle for Sirte could produce casualties on the same order of magnitude as a government assault on Behghazi. Obviously, we do not know this will happen with certitude, just as we do not know for certain that pro-Gaddafi forces would have massacred civilians in Benghazi as the President asserted tonight. The point is that it is a foreseeable outcome and must be considered.
The mission of the US and NATO, as reiterated tonight by the President, is to “take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” Will NATO therefore act to prevent a rebel assault on Sirte? Will it stand aside and allow the two sides to fight unimpeded, or will it intervene on the side of the rebels by attacking pro-Gaddafi forces? Given that NATO forces have already attacked the city and caused civilian casualties, it seems that of these three options, the last is what will occur (or is occurring now).
There are several possible conclusions that I can draw from this, none of them palatable. The first is that the President lied tonight when he said that regime change by military means “would be a mistake” and that this is the motivation for the airstrikes. Given that the President called for Gaddafi to be removed from power (albeit “peacefully”) it is reasonable to argue that the “protection of civilians” is not the only reason for military action, and perhaps only a figleaf for our real reasons.
The second is that, to paraphrase Orwell, that all Libyan civilians are equal, but some are more equal than others: in other words, we are only concerned by civilian casualties caused by Gaddafi, but not when they are caused by the rebels. While it is true that the original UN resolution is aimed primarily at the Gaddafi government, it is couched in terms of protecting civilians and establishing a cease-fire, which means that it should be binding on the rebels as well as on Gaddafi.
The third is that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, no one in power has really thought through the consequences of the military intervention in Libya and that we are using military force without a clear sense of direction. This suggests that despite our good intentions (and in making this point I am willing to accept that the President is sincere, despite what I said above), we are setting ourselves up for another protracted, expensive and possibly futile military intervention, one which will bring far more pain and suffering to Libya than what we originally acted to prevent.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In