WASHINGTON – The international coalition’s strikes on forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have enabled Libyan rebels to regroup and attempt an advance west, but US officials maintain Washington will not take decisive sides in the conflict.
President Barack Obama sought in his speech Monday to reconcile the fact that he wants Gaddafi gone with the view that pursuing a policy of regime change through military means could spell disaster.
“If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter,” Obama warned, noting how the UN Security Council mandate allows for “all necessary means” to protect Libyan civilians but rules out occupation by a foreign power.
To this end, the US military is “not talking with the opposition,” US Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the US military’s Joint Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Monday.
“We’re not in direct support of the opposition, that’s not part of our mandate and we’re not coordinating with the opposition,” he emphasized.
The air strikes, however, have still clearly benefited the rebel alliance, based in the country’s east and seeking a clear path to march on Gaddafi forces.
Coalition aircraft have carried out 1,600 missions since March 19, with US aircraft involved in 60 percent of the runs.
Two-thirds of the 178 missions in the past day were “strikes,” and most would be from now on, Gortney said.
And despite continuing insistence against a direct linkage to rebel efforts, the US military announced Monday a shift from long-range guided missile attacks that have targeted command centers and anti-aircraft defenses, to low-flying combat aircraft designed for close-range assaults against ground troops.
“Clearly, they’re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” noted Gortney. He however also described the opposition seeking to counter four decades of Gaddafi rule as “not well organized (and) not a very robust organization,” which means rebel gains will continue to be “tenuous.”
Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank that organized a panel discussion on Libya Monday, noted that while Washington’s “de facto goal” was to see Gaddafi lose power, it remains “very difficult to say out loud.”
Other analysts have insisted a mandate to protect everyday Libyans was not enough in the face of a leader like Gaddafi.
“The idea that you could stop the slaughter of Libyan civilians and then somehow walk away, leaving Gaddafi in place does not make sense,” said Brookings think-tank expert Kenneth Pollack.
With Obama insisting Monday that regime change through US military might was not an option, comparing the prospect to US involvement Iraq — “that is something we can afford to repeat in Libya,” he said — some experts maintain the United States has little choice but to side with rebel forces.
Paul Wolfowitz, a neoconservative analyst who played a key role in the administration of former US president George W. Bush, warned that Washington does not “even know who Gaddafi is, because we have never dealt with Gaddafi in a state he will be if he succeeds in keeping control of half of Libya.
The embattled Libyan leader is “going to be insanely bent on revenge and much more dangerous than anything we’ve encountered before,” he warned.”
