As the Libyan insurgency against Muammar Qadhafi's regime has begun to lose momentum in recent days, pressure has increased on Barack Obama's administration to intervene with force. But US policy experts appear to be divided as to whether military intervention--including the implementation of a no-fly zone--is a good idea. Qadhafi's regime has held on to power for much longer than many thought when the uprising first began on 17 February. “It seemed unlikely that Qadhafi could hold on for more than a few days,” Simon Henderson, a senior researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (TWI), told Al-Masry Al-Youm. “Well, a few days turned out to be a few weeks.” Largely because rebel forces appear unable to defeat Qadhafi on their own, many--including US senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman--are calling for a boost to the opposition in the form of military intervention. Most of the debate has resolved around the possibility of imposing a no-fly zone in the country, which would curtail Qadhafi's ability to use aircraft against rebel forces. For the most part, the opposition in Libya has welcomed this possibility. “A no-fly zone would respond to the specific request of the opposition and level the playing field between Qadhafi and the rebels by taking away his most powerful weapons,” wrote Michael Singh, another senior researcher at TWI, in an email to Al-Masry Al-Youm. In recent days, rebels groups have renewed calls for western implementation of a no-fly zone in the face of deteriorating conditions. Nevertheless, Henderson warns that despite the increasing support among the rebels for western military intervention, rebel sentiment is susceptible to change--especially if Qadhafi manages to retake control of the country. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that “it's very important that [a no-fly zone] not be a US-led effort" seemed to indicate that a no-fly zone will not be imposed without UN approval. However, Russia and China, who have the power to veto resolutions in the UN Security Council, are widely expected to block the initiative. Henderson suggests strong reasons for a delicate approach. “In truth, does one really want to intervene in a situation like this, where you might not achieve a clear result?" he asks. "One could understand the reluctance of any administration or the Europeans to get involved in this, particularly if there's confusion over how it's going to work out. We don't want to side with the rebels, and then the rebels give up and accuse us of interference.” Michael Knights, Lafer Fellow at TWI, also supports the possibility that the US could help defeat Qadhafi without resorting to force. Nevertheless, for Knights, skillful diplomacy must involve the credible threat of military intervention. “International discussions about military options, coupled with tougher UN resolutions and threatening deployments of US and European air and naval assets could still convince some members of the regime that they are on ‘the wrong side of history,'” he wrote to Al-Masry Al-Youm. “In combination with targeted sanctions and statements naming regime officials, there might still be an opportunity to convince regime leaders to defect to the opposition.” Yet refraining from military action also very clearly has its dangers, as supporters of it are quick to point out. Bret Stevens of the Wall Street Journal wrote on Tuesday that America's decision on whether or not to intervene militarily in Libya will likely have repercussions for Iran. “What message does that send to the region's potentially most consequential opposition movement, Iran's still-defiant Greens?“ he wrote. “Then again, they already know of what stuff this president is--or rather isn't--made of.” Stevens was implicitly mocking the Obama administration's decision not to come out strongly in favor of Iranian protesters following Iran's 2009 presidential election that was rigged in favor President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even for those who favor military interference, however, it remains unclear how the US can best approach it. The much-discussed option of establishing a no-fly zone is controversial not simply because of the danger of prolonged involvement and the risks it would mean for US personnel, but also due to its questionable efficacy. According to an annual report released on Tuesday by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Qadhafi's airforce is primarily dependent on the use of helicopters--which, because they are slow-moving in comparison to planes, can evade traditional radar systems. Options for lesser forms of military intervention include providing the opposition with intelligence, ammunition, logistical support, communication systems, training and heavy weapons. It may be the case that such support has already begun in the form of US requests to get arm shipments to Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia, as Robert Fisk of The Independent reported on Monday. If the report is accurate, it would appear that the Obama administration has already decided pursue military intervention, albeit one of a quieter sort than some voices demand.
