Dazed and confused by the Libyan mandate

„In fact, it seems obvious that as long as Gaddafi remains in power, Libyan civilians are threatened — not just in Benghazi and other rebel-held territory, but in Tripoli and other parts of the country where the government still holds sway. There are neighborhoods of the capital where residents showed open opposition to Gaddafi at the beginning of the uprising. Aren’t these civilians in mortal danger? Don’t they need to be protected, too? The only way to end the threat is to depose Gaddafi — which is what the United States wants to do. It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go, Obama said this week. So is that what we’re really doing in Libya, ousting a brutal dictator?

Absolutely not. The military mission is specifically limited to the humanitarian goal of protecting civilians. According to the White House, we’re not taking the rebels’ side — and we’re not using military means to unseat Gaddafi. Well, maybe someone will launch the occasional cruise missile at his compound, but it won’t be an attempt at regime change. Maybe Gaddafi will make it easy for us and decamp to one of the few countries that might be willing to take him. But while he is battered, he’s far from defeated. What if he stays and fights, as he has repeatedly vowed to do. Then what?

To fulfill our mandate of protecting civilians, we’ll have to enforce the no-fly zone indefinitely. We’ll also have to provide tons of aid so that the rebels don’t starve. But if we’re not going to also give them weapons, it’s unrealistic to expect shotgun-toting shopkeepers and cabdrivers to vanquish what is left of Gaddafi’s professional army.”