U.S. May Further Escalate Civil War in Libya
By Matt Southworth on 05/13/2011 @ 04:30 PM
The Obama administration may unfreeze some $30 billion in Libyan assets to assist Libyan rebels in driving Muammar Gaddafi from power and end the military stalemate. President Obama met with rebel leader Mahmoud Jibril this morning at the White House to discuss the prospects for such a deal. If the U.S. decides to free up assets frozen by economic sanctions, it would represent a significant policy shift for the Obama administration and an escalation of the Libyan civil war.
The policy shift would come after nearly two months of a sustained bombings campaign in which over 3,000 bombs have been dropped since March 19th, when the U.S. begin enforcing the United Nations and Arab League sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya. A policy change like this would represent a significant escalation to the civil war in Libya. This, of course, will not bring peace or stability to Libya. (Read what could here). The no-fly zone, originally established under the auspices of protecting civilians, has failed to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power; in addition, it has also failed to adequately protect civilians or mitigate a large humanitarian crisis.
By all accounts, the humanitarian crisis in Libya has worsened significantly. Nearly 750,000 people have fled Libya, creating a regional humanitarian crisis of “devastating” proportions, according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. The death toll is estimated at 10,000-30,000, with an additional 50,000 or more wounded. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen estimated the rebel force at around 1,000 when testifying to the House Armed Service Committee in April. Therefore, the vast majority of these casualties are likely to be civilians.
U.S. costs are also quickly accumulating, a concern to many in a time of tight budgets. As of yesterday, according to SecDef Gates, the U.S. has spent around $750 million since the bombing campaign began. The pentagon also estimates U.S. monthly cost to be around $40 million until the no-fly zone is lifted. As I've pointed out before, the money the U.S. is spending on the conflict in Libya is significant. In essence, the U.S. could fund the State Department—which should be tasked with brokering a political solution to the conflict—for about 16 years with the money spent so far.
Perhaps most importantly, the expiration date for legally conducting combat operations in Libya without Congressional approval (as per the War Powers Resolution of 1973) is looming over the Obama administration. With no clear end in sight, Congressional approval is needed to continue the war after May 19th. The Obama administration must decide if escalating the Libyan civil war is really a viable political option and how it will establish Congressional approval for continued engagement.
To be clear: escalating the civil war in Libya will be absolutely disastrous. Supporting the anti-Gaddafi rebels, whom we know little about according to SecDef Gates, will inevitably prove to be a colossal foreign policy misstep. Moreover, even if Gaddafi is driven from power—the unstated goal of supporting Libyan rebel forces—there is little assurance that violence will stop in Libya. In fact, it is much more likely that various factions in Libya will begin fighting each other in an attempt to fill the power vacuum left by Gaddafi’s departure.
The House will be taking up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) the week of May 23, after recess next week. Rep. John Conyers (MI) plans to offer an amendment on the NDAA to prevent the deployment of U.S. ground troops in Libya. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) is also planning to introduce a bill to test the legality of U.S. involvement under the War Powers Resolution. Congress must send a clear signal to President Obama: the U.S. cannot and should not escalate the civil war in Libya.
Update: Rep. John Conyers amendment, offered on the NDAA, baring funding for ground troops in Libya passed the house on May 26, 2011 by an astonishing 416-5 vote. See how your member of Congress voted here.
Comments
Leave a Comment