With the overall strategy and goals of the war in Libya still largely undefined, Western officials are once again downplaying the possibility of some sort of “victory” in the conflict. Instead, officials are talking up the possibility of a stalemate.
British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey, who spoke extensively about the conflict, insisted that a stalemate could be seen as “achieving the humanitarian objective,” and also conceded there is nothing resembling an “exit strategy” for the conflict. He did not rule out further escalation, however, and said Britain and others might yet send ground troops.
This has raised the possibility, at least in the near term, of a partition of the nation between East and West Libya. There are historical arguments to support this as a solution, but an attempt to impose a partition along lines favorable to NATO is likely to fuel considerable resentment as well.
Mostly, however, the issue is that Western nations can’t agree, sometimes even internally, about what the mission is. President Obama even wavered in a speech Monday in Chile, when he first insisted the US was supporting the UN mandate, then claimed his goal was “regime change.” That change is bound to involve dramatic escalation of an already controversial war, and could lead to another Iraq-style long-term occupation.
The US needs to retreat from their self-appointed job of global cop simply because they can't afford to run an empire anymore.
But the vacuum left by the lack of US leadership is being filled by dithering nations each with their own self interest.
Sarkozy wants a quick, victorious humanitarian mission to boost him at the polls. Ditto for Cameron and Harper. The Italians seem less gung-ho due to their extensive oil deals with Libya. Turkey is not about to bomb a Muslim country. Germany is totally out.
The leaders of the Arab League want to be seen as “saving” Libya in order to distract from their own use of force (albeit on a lesser scale) against their own rebellious masses. But while they called for a no-fly zone they left it up to the west to enforce – and then put on a show for their people by complaining about civilian casualties.
With no clear leadership, this mission is turning out to be one of the biggest diplomatic jokes of the past few decades. We’re on day FOUR and the coalition is already fraying.
The question now is who breaks first: Ghadafi on the military front, or the UN on the diplomatic front.
The regime knows it just has to hang on a few days (maybe weeks) longer and it'll have won at least a partition of the country, and Ghadafi will officially have 9 lives.
I believe it is not that the "coalition" force strategy for Libya is undefined, but rather it is untold. The strategy is untold because it is so sinister. that strategy is to trash to Libya, its infrastructure, its political system, its culture, its ability to function as a civil society to the point that the Libyan people become totally dependent upon the coalition for their mere survival. To execute this strategy, there is no need for anyone to "win", but simply to keep a war going for an unspeakably long time until everything is totally destroyed. That is the strategy not only for Libya, but for the entire Middle-East which no one dares speak of.
The mission is to try out weapons and perhaps use some of the older missiles before they pass the safe '"use-by "date.
If a FEW innocent civilians are killed what does it matter?
After all this is for their own good and is ment to protect them from a brutal dictator.
the strategy is t show off their new toys, it an arena for a weapons sales pitch