What's the best outcome for Libya?
Spencer Ackerman reports that the U.S. plan for ending the Libya war is to exhort Gaddafi and his field commanders to stand down:
Whereas once the loyalists did the besieging, now they might be preparing for a siege of Gadhafiâ??s capitol. No wonder the call for defections is ringing out.But thatâ??s the only endgame that Clinton and Gates articulated. And NATOâ??s announcement that itâ??ll take over the war stopped short of measures to directly tip the military balance on the ground.
In a statement issued Sunday, NATO drew a firm line short of arming the Libyan opposition. Its efforts to â??enforce the arms embargoâ? authorized by the United Nations will be â??impartial, as the embargo â??applies to all sides.â? The rebels can rely on NATO planes for air cover, but nothing more.
NATO has already taken a difficult step in assuming command of the war. So it may not be surprising that it doesnâ??t want the mission to escalate into an effort to oust Gadhafi. But itâ??s an open question whether the poorly trained and outgunned rebels can defeat Gadhafiâ??s mechanized forces, even if they march all the way to Tripoli.
As a wise man once observed, predictions are hard, especially about the future. So I'm not going to speculate on how Libya is going to "end." I would like to pose the following question, however: would it be better for U.S. and Western interests to have a Somalia-style failed state in Libya following the violent overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi, or would it be preferable to have Gaddafi slaughter his way back to unified control over Libya?
