Libyan waiting game favors
Gaddafi By Victor Kotsev
TEL AVIV - The Western "military option"
in Libya has turned into a military fashion show
of questionable merit. In order to believe this,
we need not take the word of American and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defense
officials - many of whom, such as Pentagon chief
Robert Gates and NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
have been singing the "there is no military
solution" refrain practically since the beginning
of the intervention.
Nor do we really need
to believe the analysts who have sought to explain
what the show is really about. It is enough to
look at all the "covert" and "diplomatic"
developments of the last few days, which would add
up to a benign farcical soap opera if it wasn't for
the very real suffering of
people on the ground.
Unable to penetrate
or take out Muammar Gaddafi's military, last week
the allies orchestrated a few political defections
- most notably by the Foreign Minister Moussa
Koussa - which they then drummed up as major
successes. As US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
admitted in a United States Senate hearing, their
strategy for removing the Libyan leader devolved
into a vague hope that someone within his own
regime takes him out; they seem to be zeroing in
on a rift between Gaddafi's sons that has been
going on for some years, and there is a
theoretical chance they will succeed, yet the
likelihood that their own "coalition of the
willing" will fracture before that happens, is
even greater.
The "game" has become ugly
to the point that even pretences of transparency
and honesty are being abandoned. A disinformation
campaign, tailored to the short attention span and
lack of genuine interest of Western audiences, is
in full gear. Today's promises are forgotten
tomorrow or twisted beyond recognition.
Officially, NATO is not coordinating air
strikes with the rebels, nor is it arming them,
nor are there any special forces on the ground -
until further notice, which, of course, would
apply retroactively. The rebels - whose
"pro-democratic" government, dominated by former
regime officials, Central Intelligence Agency
assets and freelance opportunists, is arguably the
greatest mystification of all - maintained until a
few days ago that their only Western adviser was
"Google Earth". Correspondents on the ground may
wonder where, all of a sudden, they are getting
all the rockets that they previously did not have
- what rockets?
It is true that NATO has a
long history of disinformation campaigns to draw
on. Even the ratio of Western claims to realistic
estimates of casualties screams "Serbia":
consider, for example, the 100,000 Albanian deaths
in Kosovo, which subsequently turned out to be
closer to 3,000. [1] Then consider the following
statistics on Libya which Asia Times Online
uncovered: American officials claimed that as many
as 50,000-100,000 lives had been saved by the
operation, based on roughly 2,000 casualties by
March 25. [2]
What is less clear is how
the alliance, unable to beat Gaddafi in the field
where it has a definite advantage (military
hardware), hopes to take him down in a game that
he undoubtedly owns. The Libyan leader is a master
of double-talk and disinformation - so much so
that he has long been branded as "irrational" and
even "crazy". His many ceasefire announcements,
which he never intended to keep, are just a small
example of this. In an environment where it is
impossible to tell truth from lies, he would not
simply thrive; he could even rehabilitate himself,
much in the manner of a Shakespearean fool whose
insanity mirrors that of the world around him and
who ultimately speaks truth to power.
The
standoff on the ground is quickly turning into a
stalemate and a game of waiting for whose camp
will fall apart first. Both are showing signs of
stress, and Western media are eager to announce
that (to quote The New York Times) "At least two
sons of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi are proposing a
resolution to the Libyan conflict that would
entail pushing their father aside to make way for
a transition to a constitutional democracy ... "
Indeed, there is a long-standing rivalry
between Gaddafi's sons, four of whom are at the
center of the intrigue. Saif al-Islam, on the one
hand, is playing the reformer, possibly supported
by his brother Saadi. Motassem and Khamis, on the
other hand, are aligned with the so-called
hardliners. According to a number of sources, Saif
al-Islam's prolonged stay in London was in fact a
form of exile, designed to keep him away while
Gaddafi Senior sought to engineer Motassem's
succession to the country's leadership.
It
is hard to believe that these rifts disappeared
all of a sudden, but once the rebellion started,
they were quickly put on the back burner. Saif
al-Islam became one of the faces of the regime, to
the dismay of the West, and especially of the
London School of Economics where he received his
PhD. [3] Motassem and Khamis, meanwhile, worked
tirelessly on the military front, as commanders of
Gaddafi's crack troops.
One of the reasons
why Moussa Koussa's defection is unlikely to prove
as severe a blow to the Libyan government as
British officials have claimed is that at the
height of the uprising, Gaddafi reshuffled his
entire apparatus, placing extraordinary power in
the hands of his sons and relatives. The regime
that Koussa is familiar with is not necessarily
the same regime that exists now; if anybody is in
a position to oust the colonel, it is his sons,
and this is why rifts among them are much more
important than other political defections.
However, despite the precedent of a coup
organized by Motassem some years ago, it is
unlikely that any of Gaddafi's sons will turn on
his father. Not only would this defy time-honored
traditions of patriarchal loyalty, it would be a
political suicide. Under the current
circumstances, it would mean an end to the
family's rule in Libya; moreover, reports have it,
Gaddafi Snr has concentrated most of the wealth in
his hands, and any son who defies him will be left
without financial resources to draw on.
The most likely explanation of the reports
is that all the statements coming from Gaddafi's
sons are made with their father's authorization.
Gaddafi, in a sense, is playing a game of good cop
and bad cop with his enemies, a game designed to
soften the military pressure and to win sufficient
time to sow discord among NATO and the rebels. To
this end can also be interpreted promises that
(according to a Reuters report from Monday night)
"The Libyan government says it's ready to hold
elections, a referendum or any other reform to its
political system."
It seems only a matter
of time before the diverse alliance -
exponentially more diverse than the Gaddafi camp -
splits at the seams. As prestigious American
think-tank Stratfor observes, "The unity of the
rebels, in short, is based upon a common desire to
oust the longtime Libyan leader."
Two
vague camps already appear to be forming in the
anti-Gaddafi coalition. The rebels are supported
by Britain and France in their demand that the
Libyan leader and his family depart from power,
while the United States and some of the other
allies are progressively getting cold feet. The
Obama administration already sought to extricate
itself from a combat role in Libya over the
weekend, but was forced to reconsider, ostensibly
for 48 hours, "due to poor weather conditions"
that hampered operations by the rest of the NATO
allies. Translation: if America leaves, Britain
and France are lost.
The American
prevarications can also be interpreted as a
strategy to put pressure on the rebels and on the
European allies to accept a ceasefire; after the
disastrous offensive against Gaddafi last week, it
became clear that the opposition simply isn't up
to the task of defeating the government forces.
[4] On the other hand, however, the rebels refused
a ceasefire on any realistic terms, insisting
instead that the government withdraws its forces
and allows "peaceful" protests. Over the weekend,
they even sent their best troops to the frontline
near Brega, most likely hoping to show the world
that they still have a fighting chance. The show
failed miserably: the best they could do, assisted
by NATO air strikes, was hold the line.
A
ceasefire would allow the West to save face, to
pile more soft pressure on Gaddafi, and also to
train and arm rebel forces. According to an
Al-Jazeera report:
In the east, which is largely free
of the regime's control, rebels are reportedly
receiving specialized training from US and
Egyptian forces, although the US has denied that
claim ... A rebel fighter and former teacher who
asked to remain anonymous told Al-Jazeera that
he had received training from Egyptian and
American "special forces" at a "secret facility"
in the east ... "He told us that on Thursday
night a new shipment of Katyusha rockets had
been sent into eastern Libya from Egypt. He
didn't say they were sourced from Egypt, but
that was their route through," our correspondent
said.
However, if the end goal is to
oust the Libyan leader, this is a risky move.
International backlash against the campaign is
mounting, and once stopped, it would be hard to
resume it. The best NATO can realistically hope
for is a division of Libya, similar to that of
Bosnia or Serbia and Kosovo.
This would
embarrass seriously Britain and France, who have
staked much - most importantly, oil and prestige -
on the departure of Gaddafi. Moreover, it would
give the colonel an opportunity to consolidate his
grip on the western part of the country and to
purge his government of any potentially weak
links. He is making steady progress on Misrata,
the third-largest Libyan city and only major rebel
stronghold in the west, and, according to a report
by Asharq Alawsat, he put down a "small" officers'
revolt on Friday.
Gaddafi is actively
exploring additional rifts inside the Western
alliance, specifically by courting Greece and
Turkey - two longstanding rivals - at the same
time. On Sunday, his deputy foreign minister,
Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, visited Greece. "The Libyan
envoy wanted to convey that his country has the
intention to negotiate," a Greek official told
Al-Jazeera subsequently. "We don't think that
there can be a military solution to this crisis."
The next day, the same Libyan official was
in Turkey, negotiating a ceasefire. Turkish
officials have been saying more or less the same
as the Greeks, but they angered Gaddafi by calling
on him to step down, and subsequently by sending a
hospital ship to Misrata accompanied by warships
and fighter planes. The colonel likely wanted to
remind them that, if they persist, he can trim
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's
ambitions to play a pivotal role in the Arab world
by allying with his Balkan rival.
Greece,
afflicted with an unprecedented economic crisis,
would find it hard to refuse a Libyan offer of
cheap oil. It could probably count on tacit
support from its other major economic backer,
Germany (which refused to take part in the air
campaign and abstained at the United Nations
Security Council on resolution 1973).
The
Libyan opposition is less than thrilled at the
news of talks. "People in the eastern city of
Benghazi are angered by the talk of negotiations.
They continue to stand resolute in their call for
Muammar Gaddafi and his entire family to leave
power," Al-Jazeera reported on Tuesday. Yet, the
rebels are beyond doubt unable to keep fighting on
their own; apart for being disorganized, according
to reports, they are desperate for money, and this
is most likely their motivation to pursue a
far-fetched deal to sell the oil they hold in
store via Qatar. [5] They are currently completely
at the mercy of their Western patrons.
The
behavior of the NATO allies will depend to a
certain extent on their undeclared objectives, and
largely on the back-stage bargaining that is
beyond doubt going on frantically. Asia Times
Online's Pepe Escobar has already fleshed out many
of their "business" goals. [6] Suffice it to add
the findings of a recent Reuters report:
"This is turning into the best shop
window for competing aircraft for years. More
even than in Iraq in 2003," says Francis Tusa,
editor of UK-based Defense Analysis. "You are
seeing for the first time on an operation the
Typhoon and the Rafale up against each other,
and both countries want to place an emphasis on
exports. France is particularly desperate to
sell the Rafale." ... The Libyan operation to
enforce UN resolution 1973 coincides with a new
arms race - a surge of demand in the $60 billion
a year global fighter market and the arrival of
a new generation of equipment in the air and at
sea.
It is uncertain what shape the
final compromise will take, but time seems to be
on the side of Gaddafi. Militarily, he can keep
spinning out his Maoist tactics, while
politically, he only has to survive long enough to
see the corpse of his enemies' unity floating
downstream on the proverbial river. From that
point until a conquest of Benghazi, it is only a
short march.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
