Normally when a country decides to intervene in another country’s civil war, they choose a side. The U.S. has decided to take a different approach in Libya: We may soon be bombing both sides.
As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya, and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that if they endanger civilians, they will not be shielded from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the government’s forces have been punished.
“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”
The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians, come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: who in Libya is a civilian?
The short answer to that last question is, “Whoever our bombs aren’t falling on.” After all, if a Tomahawk missile fired from a U.S. battleship were to “endanger civilians” it might cause NATO to bomb the U.S. Navy.
(Via: RWN)
April 1st, 2011 | 4:11 pm
As the goal of the intervention in Libya appears to be to block a Gaddafi massacre of civilians, it doesn’t seem inconsistent to make it quite clear to the rebels that if they start targeting civilians, engaging in war crimes against the civilian population, etc., they will be prevented from doing so to the extent that our military presence there allows.
April 1st, 2011 | 4:17 pm
…it doesn’t seem inconsistent to make it quite clear to the rebels that if they start targeting civilians…
The rebels themselves are mostly civilians. So what happens if they are attacked by other civilians who are loyal to Gaddafi? Do we bomb the pro-Gaddafi civilians or the anti-Gaddafi civilians?
My point is that we are getting ourselves into a big mess that we don’t even understand. The idea of “humanitarian bombing” is problematic enough since any bombs dropped are likely to “endanger civilians.” But when we start saying we are going to bomb one group of civilians for attacking another group of civilians (all while endangering other civilians) it makes one wonder what we are trying to achieve.
April 2nd, 2011 | 10:41 pm
Bombing Kills civilians, it has in the past and will continue to. Bombing is the worse type of war fair. And US military stratagee has been to bomb
It is a chance for the military to test their new toys at the expense of the inasent. tax payers and the otherside.
April 4th, 2011 | 12:10 pm
Obviously the policy in Libya is to drop bombs at random and see if they hit any one.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact