Someone Please Rid Europe of Lukashenko

Image via Wikipedia

In what can only be described as bizarre, President for Life Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus has said that all oppositoin candidates should flee abroad. Perhaps a little revolution is in order?  Isn't it time that the last dictator of Europe be ousted by any means necessary?  Just sayin'...

Libya's Civil War - What Happens Next?

Image by شبكة برق | B.R.Q via Flickr

Well, that was fast. Now the Arab League is upset that bombs are dropping. They cannot be serious - I am assuming that the statement from the Secretary General of the Arab League was made with political intent since he is also interested in running for president in Egypt. However, even he has stepped back from criticism as he pointed to the prohibition against foreign troops and occupation.


Al Jazeera (which has the absolutely best coverage) reports that the “Arab Street” is not protesting and doesn’t really care. It is Qadaffi, after all – and he is hardly anyone’s favourite dictator in this region. They are outraged, for example, of the slaughter of protesters in Yemen last Friday where over 40 were killed by snipers firing into a crowd. But, they also know that Qadaffi has killed thousands and that his tanks, once inside a city, indiscriminately fire on civilians, apartment buildings and generally cause massive destruction and death. There is no comparison.

Not to beat a dead horse, but now that the initial assault is over and the Libyan air force, air defence and its command and control centers have been obliterated in 36 hours – something only, by the way, the US could do – now what? Assuming that the US now fades into the background and hands the intervention over to Europe, what is Europe going to do since one outcome may be that Qadaffi stays in power?

Although the European nations contributing to the effort include Denmark, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Greece, Norway and the UK, it is clear that future control will be handed to either France or the UK. The contributions of Qatar (which makes me a little nervous since I am sitting here) and the UAE are important, but the European coalition needs to engage and bring in Egypt, at the least, Algeria and perhaps Turkey (although its economic interests and Erdogan’s instincts about military intervention may make Turkey’s involvement problematic). This will become even more critical if, as may very well happen, talks are opened with Qadaffi. In that case, under no circumstances should Europe (much less the US) be seen as removing him from power.

Qadaffi may be removed by his own military at some point for self-preservation. That still leaves a divided country with a self-proclaimed government in the east which, without European firepower, would probably have been decimated this past weekend. It still has no military resources or organizational capability to cross the desert and take Sirte, much less Tripoli, so the prospect of some sort of game changer – removal of Qadaffi by supporters – is important to prevent the prolongation of what is really a civil war. If that does not happen, then Europe must enlist the Arabs into more substantial support.

From the reports of al Jazeera, it is has become abundantly clear that there are rivalries within the rebel camp that are maneuvering for power. Europe also needs to tread carefully here since Libya is tribal by nature and a slight of one group could lead to increased violence. Again, it will be necessary to draw in Libya’s neighbors to avoid internecine fights in whatever new government is formed.

Assuming Qadaffi and his family do not go down with the ship, what happens to them? Does anyone have a strategy for the improbable?

End Game in Yemen

Image via Wikipedia

Yemen is about to change.

The commanders of the north-western and eastern military zones as well as the air force commanders have moved to the side of the protesters and pledge to protect them. Tanks and other armoured  vehicles have moved in to Sanaa for that purpose. Sound familiar?  Yemen's ambassadors to Jordan, Syria and Kuwait have resigned and the governor of Aden quit in support.  The protests in Sanaa are now in full bloom. President Ali Abdullah Saleh is on his way out.

The War for Libya

While watching the reports coming out of Libya last night and this morning I still have this question – “what next?” As the expanded no-fly zone advances to include a no-drive, no mortar, no heavy artillery zone (entirely legal under the wording of the Security Council resolution) what is the coalition going to do if the Colonel decides to back-off and cease military operations? Although highly improbably given his recent bellicose and defiant statements, it is not impossible.


At a press conference last night, Hillary Clinton said that the purpose of the UN resolution was to protect civilians, not regime change. Really? Although it was the politically correct answer, this is not the goal. It is certainly not the goal of the Arab coalition partners and the frequent statements from virtually every European leader as well as President Obama, is that the regime must stand down and leave. This leaves the thorny issue of who is going to effectuate the regime change. Fortunately, the US has taken the position that it will not be the pointiest stick in the bundle for once and will leave the air assault to the French and British. But, unless the regime is decapitated by an air-to-ground missile or an assassination or rebel bullet, who is going to pull Qadaffi and his sons off the thrown?

If a European ground force enters the fray it will surely win but would not look good on TV. Egypt, of course, has an effective, professional army that could, with probably one or two tank brigades, slice through to Tripoli. Given the past enmity between the two countries, that might not be the best of plans. Hillary Clinton also hinted at defections within the Qadaffi camp – a not so subtle reminder that his vaunted, all- female bodyguards may not be particularly effective when the chips are down.

But, aside from the stray missile or bullet (or not so stray), what will happen if he says he wants to talk? The first splits will come with a call by Russia, China and their all too frequent ally, Germany, to stop the air assault and sit and talk. Again, then what? With whom does one talk? The leader that everyone said had to go? His (now) equally barbaric son, Saif? The most absurd statement comes from Sarkozy who said today that once the fighting stops, France was ready to talk. France has already recognized the rebels in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya – why would they talk with Qadaffi? The UK does not need to talk to anyone and one wonders what deals they made when their S.A.S. were in Benghazi a few weeks ago.

From the European standpoint – and this is their war until the Arabs come in with something – the best outcome would be continued defiance. France is busily turning the regime’s tanks into scrap and their retreat from the outskirts of Benghazi to Sirte takes them across the desert with nowhere to hide. Expect to see officers and men abandon vehicles, join the rebellion or melt away rather than be target practice for a French Rafale or Mirage. The rebels could be armed and trained a little, and sent off to the west to take Tripoli. France and England could continue to pulverize the tanks and artillery from the air with a few cruise missiles thrown in. But, at this point, aside from the immediate tactical goals, I don’t see a strategy.

One hopes, of course, that the Libyan military will simply say “enough” and quit, thus ending the 42 year old regime and handing the government over to the rebel leaders in Benghazi.

One last question: Is there a bigger buffoon leading a country these days than Hugo Chavez who just came out against the UN authorized attack?

France, Libya and a Call to Arms

This is becoming tiresome, but when France quickly recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government in the country, my first point was “what next?” Now it is clear that the “next” was the military involvement of the US in the form of providing the logistics, communications and, last but not least, military aircraft to not only impose a no-fly zone over Libya, but to bomb airfields and who knows what else. As much as I hate to agree with Saif Qadaffi – has Sarkozy gone crazy?


The Washington Post reported today that “France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said Wednesday that there was still time for military intervention to turn the tide against embattled leader Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. All the United States and other major powers had to do, he suggested, was follow France’s lead to pass a quick Security Council resolution and then send warplanes to neutralize Qaddafi’s air force.”

Well, that’s nice. This is a civil war. Intervening on one side against the other is not likely to produce good results for the intervener. Although not on the same scale, the Vietnam War was a massive interference by a foreign power in what was essentially a civil war. How did that turn out? Libya is certainly not the same scale, but the idea is the same. The no-fly zones in Iraq and Kosovo did not work, but were intended to protect non-combatants (otherwise known as civilians) from being pounded from the air by their respective governments. What France and the UK are suggesting, however, now goes well beyond a no-fly zone and is expressly stated – to “turn the tide against…Muammar Qadhafi…”

The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, took it a step further. He said that “Only the threat of use of force can stop Qadhafi. The Libyan dictator has upset the battlefield balance by bombing his opponents’ positions with the several dozen airplanes and helicopters at his disposal. We can neutralize his air capacities by targeted strikes. That is what France and Britain have been proposing for two weeks.”

Upset the battlefield balance? Is that serious? First of all, that is what one battlefield commander is supposed to do to the other. It’s called winning. Second, what Juppe is suggesting is an act of war.

Look, the rebels seem like the good guys – and compared to the current regime probably are marginally better. But does anyone really know? Doesn’t the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq with supporting “the good guys” trigger some hesitation? The final point is that sometimes rebellions fail and sometimes those who are the good guys at that moment in time, lose. No one intervened in Sudan. I don’t see anyone rushing to intervene in Cotê d’Ivoire or the Congo or Burma (France made noises there as well) all of which are arguably more important than the results in Libya where the West was happy with the regime until a few weeks ago.

Failed Revolutions - Bahrain and Libya

This is the view from my window as I sit here in quiet Qatar next door to Bahrain; speculation is rampant on what will happen next in Bahrain – important from a Saudi, US, Iranian and European foreign policy and geo-political perspective – and Libya (not so important except, perhaps, to Europe). While two weeks ago the predictions for Libya were that the regime would fall, those were clearly premature as it struck back with efficient force from a loyal army and put the rebellion on its heels with astonishing rapidity. Today, the last stronghold before Benghazi has been taken and Qaddafi has vowed to crush the rebels, whom he characterized last night as traitors and several forms of vermin. Read bloodbath. The collapse of the rebellion will not be pretty.


A resolution has been tabled in the UN to impose a no-fly zone. That will do nothing to change the momentum on the ground. It didn’t in Kosovo until NATO began to target ground units and the capital, Belgrade and time is vanishing for the rebel government as Europe – divided as ever – freezes in its tracks. Despite the Lieberman-McCain tired, old song of unilateral US intervention whether it is a good idea or not, that sort of adventure has not worked out so well. It would be profoundly stupid for the US to intervene. Perhaps if the US sent a neo-con/neo-Nazi tea-bagger delegation to Tripoli it could convince Qaddafi to stop or else be subject to a massive hissy fit of tired, old white men.

But then there is Europe. French recognition (as well as the Arab League’s) of the rebel government may come back to haunt it. Will France have the nerve to go it alone? Will they risk a terror campaign in France by Libya? What were they thinking at the time they recognized the rebellion as the legitimate government? Was there even a plan for the next steps – or even a first step? The problem with all the hand wringing in Europe over the fate of the rebels is that they are prepared to do nothing unless the US handles it, which will get no credit and all the blame. Germany doesn’t even like the idea of a no-fly zone – an expected reaction from a nation that has become a little too fat and comfortable at the expense of its fellow EU members. But Libya is ultimately a European issue – as I have said before. Strategically it is meaningless to US interests and the blow-back from even a scintilla of US for intervention with what it has remaining available in military assets will be huge. For the US, assisting Egypt is far a key to any Middle East strategy, including the job of reigning in a vengeful Qaddafi & Son.

If Europe does nothing in time or at all (par for the course – just look at the Balkans) then Qadaffi’s tanks will roll into Benghazi and rout the rebellion. Even if they put down their arms, Qaddafi is not the forgiving type and his Western educated MBA son has shown his true colors. If there is a bloodbath, what will Europe and the US do about it? Because at that point it is likely that all will remain of the rebel opposition will be an underground movement. Not exactly the type of internal support needed if NATO chose to attack. Of course, Qaddafi or an over-zealous officer could take the disastrous step (for Qaddafi) of launching a missile at a European ship or, more to the point, a US warship. We all know what would follow and the question of a no-fly zone or Qaddafi military victory over the rebels would evaporate. Highly improbable, but not impossible.

There are so many variables regarding actions to be taken regarding Libya – including variables that no one has thought about – that the consequences of even imposing a no-fly zone are unknown and make no mistake that a no-fly zone is the equivalent of a declaration of war – for which Europe has no stomach.

Bahrain. No one should be surprised at Saudi intervention. Unfortunately for the Shiite majority, this is not about Bahrain or democracy. It is about Iran. It is about control of the Arabian Gulf (it is not called the Persian Gulf here). It is about destabilization on the Arabian Peninsula and Iranian dominance in the region. It is about oil and gas. The legitimate grievances of Shiites in Bahrain are, for the Saudi’s, completely irrelevant at this point. It is likely that some reforms will take place sometime in the future, but not until Saudi Arabia is assured that any Iranian plan has been derailed. So what will happen next?

As of today, the police in Bahrain are dispersing demonstrations and some violence with two killed has taken place. Films of a few protesters attacking police are being used by Saudi Arabia to show that the demonstrations are not peaceful. The government of the ruling minority Sunni has offered to hold talks but the two opposition Shiite groups are divided – one wanting to talk but fearful it will be labeled a pawn of the regime and the other not willing to negotiate until its demands for reform in the government (including the reduction of the ruling family to figurehead status) is met. With Saudi military intervention, it is unlikely that the second Shiite group will prevail – thereby flushing any hopes by Tehran for toppling the government. For the Shiites, the use of tanks, helicopters and live ammunition against them will be effective as will the 3 month state of emergency. But not forever.

Iran could intervene directly like the Saudi’s. Similar to an attack on a US or NATO ship off the Libyan coast, the result would be catastrophic for Iran as the US fleet is sitting in its backyard. Although a remote possibility, if it were to occur, then the Iranian coast would become a very dangerous place to be – for the Iranians. The excuse would be handed to the US to cripple Iranian sea and shore defense military capabilities and who knows what else. Oil prices would head to $200 and the economic ripple effects would likely be severe. Internally, the clerical dictatorship would become worse and Iranian strategy in the region, which has so far worked remarkably well, would be in shambles. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.

Iran could also create a diversion – either with Israel through Hezbollah or in Iraq. Neither of those scenarios is good for Iran as it is not clear that Hezbollah wants another confrontation with Israel at this time which would involve, by default, Syria, which itself wants control of Lebanon. Action by Iran in Iraq would stop – if not reverse – the US withdrawal. Neither diversion would do anything to help its plans for dominance of the region in general or for Bahrain in particular and both are unlikely; but they remain possibilities and an idea of how to deal with them needs to be considered.

The point is that trying to predict the future in Bahrain and Libya is pretty much just a guess as the remote possibilities or even events of which we are not even considering could take place. Prediction in these scenarios is impossible and intervention in Libya by NATO or any one or more European countries, not to mention the US which would be the case with NATO, simply multiplies the possible resulting scenarios.

The Other Shoe

Image by Abode of Chaos via Flickr

France has recognized the shadow government formed by the Libyan rebels in Benghazi.  Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado said today he had sent a message to Libyan leader Gadhafi through a Tripoli envoy saying: “The Gadhafi regime is over.".  On Friday in Brussels, it is very likely that a decision will be reached to support the rebellion in Libya.

Then what?

Will France send in its air force? Navy? Send arms to the rebels?  Unless the plan is already in place, all this will take time and it is beginning to look like Gadhafi's tanks have the upper hand.  Tanks without opposition can and do move very, very fast. No fly zones change nothing on the ground and it is there where the battle will be won or lost.

To a large degree, Libya is Europe's issue and very far from US interests which is in the grip of a McCarthy- like demonization of its own Muslim citizenry at the hands of neo-Nazi teabaggers.  The US will be doing nothing substantive.  It's probably a good idea considering Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with domestic witchhunts.

So, what will be next on the agenda  in Brussels or Paris or Rome?  Who will take the first step? And if a fig leaf of a no-fly zone is implemented, who will be piloting the fighters?