Military Intervention in Libya Serves No U.S. Interests

• Qaddafi’s Revolutionary Guard remains committed to him.
• Qaddafi is able to surround himself with mercenaries from sub-Saharan countries.
• Qaddafi uses tribes in a “divide-and-rule” fashion, linking, for example, isolated tribal elders to the army brigades.
• The Libyan opposition does not have the leadership necessary to face the centralized power of a dictatorial regime.

After stating that a leadership vacuum has emerged within the international community, Mr. Vandewalle had analyzed the reactions of the key players:

• United States: torn between humanitarian and practical concerns, namely, the dangers posed by a no-fly zone and the need for a no-drive zone; a lack of national interests in Libya; the dangers of a third war in a Muslim country; and the fracture of Libya due to an exacerbated civil war.
• European Union: qualms about entering the Libyan conflict, coupled with bold action proposed by French president Nicholas Sarkozy, meant the E.U. nations could not unify around a common objective.
• U.N. Security Council: Russia, with its close oil and natural gas ties to Libya, remained hesitant to back opposition to Qaddafi.
• Arab League: stated that action should be taken, but through the United Nations.

During the question and answer period, Mr. Vandewalle stated that a lack of U.S. resources on Libyan ground meant that the makeup of oppositional forces remains vague. A lack of political institutions in Libya, moreover, threatens any potential shift to democracy—and increases the risk of post-war bloodshed. When asked if the U.S. or E.U. should establish a no-fly zone, he commented that, because it has more interests in Libya, the E.U. should take responsibility. (Mr. Vandewalle’s views on the Libyan crisis can be further accessed in a recent Foreign Policy article.)