As Gadafy clings grimly to power, the ability of rebels to sustain a long war becomes key, writes MARY FITZGERALD
US PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s decision to authorise the use of Predator drones over Libya signals deepening involvement in a conflict that has sunk into a bloody stalemate in which Muammar Gadafy appears to have the upper hand.
Washington already uses the unmanned aircraft to target militants along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. Pashtun locals call them “wasps” after the low whine their engines emit as they hover overhead. Others use the Pashto word for thunderclap to describe the sound of the drone’s laser-guided Hellfire missile when it bursts from the sky.
The use of such strikes, which often result in civilian deaths, has been criticised by the UN. The decision to introduce drones into the Libyan theatre has been interpreted as proof of growing desperation on the part of those who pushed hardest for intervention – and later, particularly in the case of Britain, France and the US, regime change – as they struggle to envisage what the endgame might look like.
If Gadafy, whose determination to cling to power is proving stronger than expected, is not ousted through intensified diplomacy or in an internal heave, the outcome is likely to boil down to whether the rebels can obtain the funding, weaponry and skills to sustain a long war.
Although apparently now somewhat better organised and armed – Qatar is believed to be one of the ‘friends’ the opposition say are providing light weapons – rebel fighters have been unable to claw more territory from regime forces in eastern Libya for more than three weeks. They continue to suffer heavy losses in their only western stronghold, Misurata, which has been under siege for almost two months.
Opposition leaders plead for further foreign assistance, saying the air strikes prompted by UN resolution 1973 are not enough to flush out Gadafy troops now hunkering in civilian areas in towns like Misurata where they are fighting street by street. What form that foreign help should or could take is a matter of fierce debate, both on the streets of Benghazi, where the rebels have their headquarters, and in Brussels and Washington.
In the early weeks of the uprising, huge banners which read “No Foreign Intervention” went up around Benghazi. As the realisation grew that Gadafy would stop at nothing to quell the revolt, that stance softened into calls for the no-fly zone, then calls for weapons and more air strikes. Now, with no end in sight, the rebels’ transitional national council is sending mixed signals on the issue of ground troops. A council spokesman said this week it would be open to a UN-designated force, though others continue to insist the presence of foreign soldiers on Libyan soil would be unacceptable and likely to play in Gadafy’s favour.
Meanwhile, preparations continue in Rome for an EU force which, subject to UN request, would be deployed to assist in aid deliveries. Separately, France, Italy and Britain have said they will send military personnel to eastern Libya, but only to advise the rebels on technical and logistical issues and not to engage in combat.
The fate of Misurata can be seen as a wider metaphor for the difficulties ahead. Its constant pummelling by Gadafy’s forces raises questions over how well Nato, which is riven by internal disagreements over the conduct of its Libyan operations, is fulfilling the UN mandate to protect.
Photojournalist Tim Hetherington’s last message on Twitter before he was killed in the city this week reads like an indictment: “In besieged Libyan city of Misurata. Indiscriminate shelling by Gadafy forces,” he wrote. “No sign of Nato.”