Libya’s faltering rebellion

The uprising in Libya appeared near collapse this week after troops loyal to strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi routed rebels defending the eastern city of Ajdabiyah and encircled the rebel capital of Ben­ghazi, 95 miles to the north. Qaddafi’s son, Saif, predicted that the rebellion would soon be crushed. Rebels in Benghazi, a Mediterranean port city of 800,000, vowed to resist the coming assault, but the ill-trained irregulars are badly outgunned by Qaddafi’s forces. “Where is the army?” asked rebel fighter Mohammed Gassar. “We need heavy weapons. We need leadership.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron called on the United Nations to “show some leadership” and impose a “no-fly” zone to keep Qaddafi’s warplanes on the ground. But the Obama administration, which has resisted any military intervention in Libya, said imposing a no-fly zone would make little or no difference. The White House was still debating alternatives, including air strikes against Qaddafi’s tanks and artillery, jamming government radio broadcasts, and using $32 billion seized from Qaddafi, his family, and associates to fund the rebellion.

For its own security, the U.S. cannot let Qaddafi win, said National Review Online in an editorial. Aware that he would be a pariah in the eyes of most of the world, Qaddafi would grow even more unpredictable and would almost certainly “restart his WMD programs as insurance against foreign intervention.” There’s still time to stop Qaddafi, “but the hour is late.” What is President Obama waiting for? asked Max Boot in The Wall Street Journal. “His weak, vacillating response to the slaughter now unfolding in Libya” is a disgrace, and “will reduce American power and prestige” throughout the region.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Entering the war against Qaddafi would be emotionally satisfying, but “the U.S. has no serious national interests at stake in Libya,” said Andrew Sullivan in the London Sunday Times. We can’t afford a third war in a Muslim nation, and as for the underdog rebels, “we have no idea whether, in power, they would be better than what preceded them.” The Libyan civil war “is not worth the life of a single American soldier,” said John Kass in the Chicago Tribune. On that, the majority of Americans agree, whether liberal, conservative, or in between. The U.S. has just spent a decade at war, trying to save Iraqis and Afghans from themselves. Enough.