Now more than 3 weeks have passed since the Americans started attacking Libya. Although some analysts expected the matter to end with a “quick and decisive victory” (as the Bush administration wrote in the 2025 military strategy of the United States), we see that not only the issue has not been resolved, but the latest information shows a kind of impasse. The impenetrable military in Libya tells that the US and NATO are not able to solve it.
Before we say anything about the specifics of this impasse, it is necessary to point out that the American attack on Libya had several reasons, but one of the most important reasons, as the American officials themselves said, was that they wanted to send a message to Iran. A look at the internal discussions of Obama’s national security team before the attack on Libya, of which little has been leaked, shows that one of the arguments of the supporters of the attack was that if the United States could complete Gaddafi’s work with a quick and lightning strike, it would At this time, a message will also be sent to Iran that America’s ability to defeat the enemy when it is determined is irresistible, and therefore it is better for Iran to stop being stubborn and come to the negotiating table. Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, stated this issue on April 15: “The ability to use this form of force in the region at such a speed, even though there are other military missions going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with the nature of this broad coalition, it sends a very strong message to Iran about our military and diplomatic capabilities.” Now the question is, regardless of what the Obama administration intended, what message did Iran really receive from the US attack on Libya? Has this attack made Iran feel more powerful in America? What is actually happening in Libya is completely the opposite. The scene is as follows:
First, the US has not entered the Libyan crisis with all its strength for 3 reasons, and basically cannot. The first reason is that Barack Obama, who started his election campaign last week, knows very well that the start of another war in the Islamic world, which is likely to end in ground intervention and finally a full-scale conflict, is a deadly poison for him in terms of elections. . The most important concern of the American people now – as they showed in last year’s congressional elections – is domestic issues, especially economic issues, and in this situation, nothing is more unfortunate for Obama than if the American voters come to the conclusion that he cares about the lives of American soldiers and The people’s tax money is being spent on a war in Libya, which basically does not have any specific benefit for the United States. The second reason is the overcrowding of the American army in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weakness of the commander-in-chief of the American forces in the Horn of Africa. US air operations against Libya are directed from only one aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea, which is clearly insufficient. Before the start of the attack, the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, told the congress representatives clearly that a successful operation against Libya would require, among other things, the complete destruction of Gaddafi’s air defenses, and for this, more force than the US currently has in the region. it is needed The third reason is Gates’ clear and very strong opposition to the involvement of the US military in a full-scale military operation against Libya. Last Thursday, he emphasized in the Senate that he absolutely does not believe that the American army should undertake such a mission, and then he said ironically that if the American people want the army to carry out this mission, they should pay for it!
Second- The second issue is related to the serious and almost irremediable weakness of Gaddafi’s internal opponents, which made them unable to overcome the cohesive army and still not listen to the colonel’s command. The major weaknesses of the opposition front can be listed as follows: 1- The opposition lacks effective leadership and almost no famous and reliable figures can be seen among them. Although these people have promised America that they will be loyal to its interests in the post-Gaddafi era, it is clear that these opponents are not considered credible enough, as none of their representatives were invited to the last meeting in London. 2- The opposition does not have enough weapons to complain about Gaddafi’s well-equipped army. One of the strategic dilemmas of the Americans is that, on the one hand, they know that the opponents are not sufficiently equipped, and on the other hand, they are unable to decide whether they should equip the opponents or not. The main excuse is that some prominent American military and security figures believe that the United States does not have a correct understanding of the composition of Gaddafi’s opposition forces, and under these conditions, arming the protesters may directly mean arming the enemies of the United States. The existence of reports, especially from Russian sources, that the forces operating in some of the important fronts of the conflict are members of Al-Qaeda has strengthened this analysis. Although the Russians prefer to remain Gaddafi’s supporters, and their opinion about the presence of traces of Al-Qaeda among the opposition, that is, Gaddafi’s initial claim, needs further investigation.
A group of representatives of the American Congress warned the government on Monday, April 15th, that before providing any weapon aid to Gaddafi’s opponents, it should first obtain enough information about them. Mike Rogers, the representative of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, who is also the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says: “Among the ranks of the revolutionaries, it is possible to see traces of Al-Qaeda, and the NATO coalition forces should be cautious before arming the revolutionaries in the fight against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.” Harry Reid, the leader of the majority in the Senate, also called for a wait-and-see policy before giving more weapons to the opposition forces in Libya and said: “I think at this stage we really don’t know who the leaders of the revolutionaries are.” Obama’s former national security advisor James Jones, who left the White House last fall, told CNN about whether the Libyan people should be armed. “The first thing to do is to find out who they are. America has not done this yet. One of the other major concerns about the arming of Gaddafi’s opponents in Libya is that some intelligence experts in the West say that if these opponents are really members of Al-Qaeda, then after they equip themselves with American weapons, they can start a new round of Attacks on American and especially European soil will begin and that’s when the big disaster will happen. This is one of the things that the Americans seem unable to put together. 3- And the third issue regarding the opposition is that they are amateurs and unprofessional. Available information shows that only a little less than a thousand revolutionaries are former members of Gaddafi’s army, and the rest are just men with guns, and as a result, people who can be integrated into a guerilla army in a short period of time have not yet been identified. The Libyan tribes, who have trained armed men, have not yet turned their backs on Gaddafi, and it seems that they will do so only when they feel that the oil wells are being damaged and that they may not receive money in the future. The Americans, who seem to have sewn bags for the future of Libyan oil, do not show any interest in attacking the Libyan oil sector.
Third- And the third issue is the severe and almost unsolvable differences within the countries that attacked Libya. On April 10, the United States handed over the command of operations against Libya to NATO, and NATO lacks the ability to coordinate its views for a single operational plan. On the one hand, it is clear that the Americans first formed a coalition without discussing military issues, and now that it is time to discuss these issues, they are faced with conflicting and irreconcilable views. For example, regarding the issue of arming the opposition, which we discussed above, the Americans have said that they are investigating the issue, but Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of NATO, has said that this issue is definitely ruled out. On the other hand, the Americans do not want to play the leading role in the conflict against Libya due to internal considerations, but now it is quite clear that if the United States does not intervene on the ground in Libya, the task of the war will not end soon, and there is a possibility that Libya Like Afghanistan, it will turn into a quagmire for NATO.
This is how it can be clearly seen that Libya has turned into an unexpected predicament for America. The Americans, who imagined that with the quick defeat of Gaddafi, they would send a crushing message to Iran, convince the nations of the region to forget their history of supporting dictators, and arrange jobs for their oil companies. Now they have received it. They have taken a much bigger bite out of their mouths. What is the result? Undoubtedly, the barbaric nature of the Americans does not allow them to admit their mistake, and for this reason they have resorted to their old habit of dealing behind the scenes with dictators. A senior American official said on the sidelines of the London conference: The possibility that the military operation in Libya will reach a dead end is serious and one of the scenarios is that Libya will be divided into two regions, East and West! And you yourself read a detailed hadith from…
Mahdi Mohammadi
Before we say anything about the specifics of this impasse, it is necessary to point out that the American attack on Libya had several reasons, but one of the most important reasons, as the American officials themselves said, was that they wanted to send a message to Iran. A look at the internal discussions of Obama’s national security team before the attack on Libya, of which little has been leaked, shows that one of the arguments of the supporters of the attack was that if the United States could complete Gaddafi’s work with a quick and lightning strike, it would At this time, a message will also be sent to Iran that America’s ability to defeat the enemy when it is determined is irresistible, and therefore it is better for Iran to stop being stubborn and come to the negotiating table. Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, stated this issue on April 15: “The ability to use this form of force in the region at such a speed, even though there are other military missions going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with the nature of this broad coalition, it sends a very strong message to Iran about our military and diplomatic capabilities.” Now the question is, regardless of what the Obama administration intended, what message did Iran really receive from the US attack on Libya? Has this attack made Iran feel more powerful in America? What is actually happening in Libya is completely the opposite. The scene is as follows:
First, the US has not entered the Libyan crisis with all its strength for 3 reasons, and basically cannot. The first reason is that Barack Obama, who started his election campaign last week, knows very well that the start of another war in the Islamic world, which is likely to end in ground intervention and finally a full-scale conflict, is a deadly poison for him in terms of elections. . The most important concern of the American people now – as they showed in last year’s congressional elections – is domestic issues, especially economic issues, and in this situation, nothing is more unfortunate for Obama than if the American voters come to the conclusion that he cares about the lives of American soldiers and The people’s tax money is being spent on a war in Libya, which basically does not have any specific benefit for the United States. The second reason is the overcrowding of the American army in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weakness of the commander-in-chief of the American forces in the Horn of Africa. US air operations against Libya are directed from only one aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea, which is clearly insufficient. Before the start of the attack, the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, told the congress representatives clearly that a successful operation against Libya would require, among other things, the complete destruction of Gaddafi’s air defenses, and for this, more force than the US currently has in the region. it is needed The third reason is Gates’ clear and very strong opposition to the involvement of the US military in a full-scale military operation against Libya. Last Thursday, he emphasized in the Senate that he absolutely does not believe that the American army should undertake such a mission, and then he said ironically that if the American people want the army to carry out this mission, they should pay for it!
Second- The second issue is related to the serious and almost irremediable weakness of Gaddafi’s internal opponents, which made them unable to overcome the cohesive army and still not listen to the colonel’s command. The major weaknesses of the opposition front can be listed as follows: 1- The opposition lacks effective leadership and almost no famous and reliable figures can be seen among them. Although these people have promised America that they will be loyal to its interests in the post-Gaddafi era, it is clear that these opponents are not considered credible enough, as none of their representatives were invited to the last meeting in London. 2- The opposition does not have enough weapons to complain about Gaddafi’s well-equipped army. One of the strategic dilemmas of the Americans is that, on the one hand, they know that the opponents are not sufficiently equipped, and on the other hand, they are unable to decide whether they should equip the opponents or not. The main excuse is that some prominent American military and security figures believe that the United States does not have a correct understanding of the composition of Gaddafi’s opposition forces, and under these conditions, arming the protesters may directly mean arming the enemies of the United States. The existence of reports, especially from Russian sources, that the forces operating in some of the important fronts of the conflict are members of Al-Qaeda has strengthened this analysis. Although the Russians prefer to remain Gaddafi’s supporters, and their opinion about the presence of traces of Al-Qaeda among the opposition, that is, Gaddafi’s initial claim, needs further investigation.
A group of representatives of the American Congress warned the government on Monday, April 15th, that before providing any weapon aid to Gaddafi’s opponents, it should first obtain enough information about them. Mike Rogers, the representative of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, who is also the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says: “Among the ranks of the revolutionaries, it is possible to see traces of Al-Qaeda, and the NATO coalition forces should be cautious before arming the revolutionaries in the fight against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.” Harry Reid, the leader of the majority in the Senate, also called for a wait-and-see policy before giving more weapons to the opposition forces in Libya and said: “I think at this stage we really don’t know who the leaders of the revolutionaries are.” Obama’s former national security advisor James Jones, who left the White House last fall, told CNN about whether the Libyan people should be armed. “The first thing to do is to find out who they are. America has not done this yet. One of the other major concerns about the arming of Gaddafi’s opponents in Libya is that some intelligence experts in the West say that if these opponents are really members of Al-Qaeda, then after they equip themselves with American weapons, they can start a new round of Attacks on American and especially European soil will begin and that’s when the big disaster will happen. This is one of the things that the Americans seem unable to put together. 3- And the third issue regarding the opposition is that they are amateurs and unprofessional. Available information shows that only a little less than a thousand revolutionaries are former members of Gaddafi’s army, and the rest are just men with guns, and as a result, people who can be integrated into a guerilla army in a short period of time have not yet been identified. The Libyan tribes, who have trained armed men, have not yet turned their backs on Gaddafi, and it seems that they will do so only when they feel that the oil wells are being damaged and that they may not receive money in the future. The Americans, who seem to have sewn bags for the future of Libyan oil, do not show any interest in attacking the Libyan oil sector.
Third- And the third issue is the severe and almost unsolvable differences within the countries that attacked Libya. On April 10, the United States handed over the command of operations against Libya to NATO, and NATO lacks the ability to coordinate its views for a single operational plan. On the one hand, it is clear that the Americans first formed a coalition without discussing military issues, and now that it is time to discuss these issues, they are faced with conflicting and irreconcilable views. For example, regarding the issue of arming the opposition, which we discussed above, the Americans have said that they are investigating the issue, but Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of NATO, has said that this issue is definitely ruled out. On the other hand, the Americans do not want to play the leading role in the conflict against Libya due to internal considerations, but now it is quite clear that if the United States does not intervene on the ground in Libya, the task of the war will not end soon, and there is a possibility that Libya Like Afghanistan, it will turn into a quagmire for NATO.
This is how it can be clearly seen that Libya has turned into an unexpected predicament for America. The Americans, who imagined that with the quick defeat of Gaddafi, they would send a crushing message to Iran, convince the nations of the region to forget their history of supporting dictators, and arrange jobs for their oil companies. Now they have received it. They have taken a much bigger bite out of their mouths. What is the result? Undoubtedly, the barbaric nature of the Americans does not allow them to admit their mistake, and for this reason they have resorted to their old habit of dealing behind the scenes with dictators. A senior American official said on the sidelines of the London conference: The possibility that the military operation in Libya will reach a dead end is serious and one of the scenarios is that Libya will be divided into two regions, East and West! And you yourself read a detailed hadith from…
Mahdi Mohammadi
