Sunday, July 17, 2011

Qaddafi’s days in Tripoli got shorter, only by a few days. And merely access to more money isn’t going to help the rebels very much. By Bibhu Prasad Routray

Alarabiya.net English

An explosion is seen during missile attacks between forces loyal to Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi and rebel fighters west of Ajdabiyah. (File Photo)
An explosion is seen during missile attacks between forces loyal to Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi and rebel fighters west of Ajdabiyah. (File Photo)
The numbered days of Col. Muammar Qaddafi in Tripoli just got shortened, but only by a few days. The July 15 decision by the United States to formally recognize the rebel leadership in Libya as the country’s legitimate government ensures a much required financial windfall for the rebels. However, the rebels will still have to fight their hearts out to dislodge an adamant Qaddafi, unless the NATO air strikes force the beleaguered leader and his army to throw up their arms in the air.

The July 15 decision ups the diplomatic pressure on Mr. Qaddafi and provides a further boost to the continuing NATO-led bombing campaign to push him out of power. But there is less likelihood that the five-month-old conflict in Libya is coming to a close, any time soon.
The US decision follows the assurance provided by the rebels that they would work towards a democratic government in Libya. The decision is also influenced by the worry that post-Qaddafi, Libya could become embroiled in tribal conflicts or ethnic tensions. Suggestions have been made recommending that the Libyan army be left intact to avoid the tactical mistake made in Iraq, when the US-led forces dismantled Saddam Hussein’s army. These plans to would require money at the disposal of the Transitional National Council (TNC).

The US government decision now potentially creates a scenario of a financial windfall for the rebels. The step allows the US to turn over some of the Libyan funds that have been frozen in American banks to the TNC. The funds would finance TNC’s efforts to oust Colonel Qaddafi and to administer the part of the country that the rebels control. According to various estimates these funds run into more than $30 billion, no small change.

The US decision has been followed by similar announcements by France, which will unfreeze $250 million in coming days and give them to the rebels.

Similarly, Italy has pledged to unfreeze $100 million. Kuwait and Qatar have already given roughly $100 million to the rebels, and other countries have pledged varying degrees of funding. Turning over these funds would be more than a shot in the arms for the cash strapped rebels, who have been enthused by the July 13 NATO decision to intensify its military campaign in Libya.

However, the advantages to the rebels end there. The availability of a huge amount of money does not add hugely to the military might of the rebels, at least for the moment. And the culprit, from a tactical point of view, is the US decision to continue to follow a “no-boots-on-the-ground policy.”

The fact remains that even with a growing list of international allies and about 5,000 air sorties carried out by the NATO forces since March 2011, the rebels have made only halting progress in wresting control of the country from Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. NATO warplanes have grounded Mr. Qaddafi’s air force and helicopters, ending a huge advantage they had over the rebels. However, that has not restored parity between the forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi and the rebels.

Fighting on two major fronts in the east remains largely deadlocked. Large swaths of the country continue to remain under the control of Mr. Qaddafi, including stronghold Tripoli and a key corridor east of the capital that is a vital conduit for supplies. Whatever gains have been made are in the west, but the progress has been too slow.

In addition to a perennial shortage of fuel, water and food, the rebels continue to reel under a huge shortage of arms. Arms, ammunition and other military supplies provided by Britain and France have been far too less compared to what is required to take on the might of Tripoli.

While not small guns, but bigger weapons are required to take over Tripoli, rebel commanders have told the international media that half of their fighters are battling the Qaddafi forces without a gun in their hands, hoping that they would be able to seize some arms from the fleeing forces.

Rather ineffective S-5 rockets are fired at the Qaddafi troops from homemade launchers, with fuses ignited by rickety car batteries and switches made from disassembled military radios. Rockets are aimed by eyeball.

Additional money will solve none of the problems for the rebels, unless they make tactical strides gaining control over the international borders, presently under the Qaddafi forces. This would allow them to buy arms from other countries and transport them unhindered to their strongholds.

The only border they presently control is with the Tunisia, which does not allow any arms to cross its border to be brought into the rebel held areas. Borders on three other sides are controlled by the Qaddafi forces.

Thus, in spite of the US decision, the painstaking efforts of the rebels will continue.

With Ramadan approaching early August, the fighting is expected to enter a slowdown mode. It is not going to be easy for the rebels who would fast from dawn to dusk to carry on fighting. Although Islam does allow the soldiers to refrain from fasting, as temperatures soar on the western mountains, the pace at which the rebels are making progress would decelerate.

Comparison can be made between the latest US decision and the 1971 decision by Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi to supply aids to the rebels in erstwhile East Pakistan (presently Bangladesh), which was under Pakistani military control. New Delhi declined to recognize the provisional government, but subsequently went on to carry out a military campaign against the Pakistani military. East Bengal was liberated and Bangladesh was formed.

It appears that the US, trying to recover from its ignominies suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a hurtful economic crisis, has no such heart to put boots on the ground.

(Dr. Bibhu Prasad Routray is an independent analyst based in Singapore and has previously been Deputy Director, India’s National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). Currently, he is a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi and a Fellow (Counter-Insurgency Studies) at the Takshashila Institution. He can be reached at bibhuroutray@gmail.com or on Twitter @BibhuRoutray)

1 comment: