The new armed conflict involving the United States and NATO (or at least some of its members) has tripped unexpectedly and in the confusion. Unlike operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which had been preceded by a preparation political, ideological and military, two weeks before the start of the "Odyssey" Libyan, nobody had the slightest suspicion. Surprisingly campaign, apparently without precedent! The biggest military powers in the world have found themselves to lead a third war in the region without having agreed on the goal, without a deployment plan, without knowing precisely who committed or who would order.
The coalition met in a hurry has however taken care to get the green light from the Security Council of the UN. In the vote, the BRICs [Brazil, Russia, India and China] have failed as a single man, who seemed surprised. If Russia and China vetoed, Washington would have washed their hands of the case, ruling that the U.S. had no intention of repeating the mistake in Iraq (a war without UN approval) and rejected on Moscow and Beijing responsibility for the killings of Benghazi. But Russia, and China, according to the elegant expression of , have "left vote" resolution.
This document is a masterpiece of hypocrisy, which enjoined to take "all measures necessary" to protect civilians. The formula opens an avenue to interpretation. Ten countries voted for "no-fly zones", which coyly pretended not to understand what that meant on the ground. Pentagon chief said he had yet should strike the enemy's military infrastructure, resulting in losses. Thus, immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, the Arab League chief , was astern, protesting that he had not planned it that way. If Washington, London, Paris and others had thought to establish a puppet regime in Tripoli to take control of Libyan oil to create an outpost in North Africa in order to project their forces towards the adjoining territories or still advancing democracy in Libya, it would have been ignoble or naive, but we could still understand. The paradox is that it does not even matter. This war is the result of a combination of circumstances. All came from the fact that the West, took courses at the speed of the Arab spring, believed that the Libyan crumble in no time, as happened with the neighboring regimes. In this context pushed, the overthrow of a detestable autocrat would have been a godsend.
But the "Berber Lion" has quickly gained strength and pushed his opponents. This was another shock. Gaddafi's military successes, combined with panicked television reports from the camp of his opponents (hence it was difficult to understand something) have resurrected in the minds of U.S. and European officials echoes of the Rwandan genocide, the page The most shameful 1990s. Thus was born the idea of humanitarian intervention. The butcher who promised to be threatened to highlight the impotence of the West. This seems kind of argument which claimed the decision of the White House. Barak Obama has finally yielded, but said that the U.S. preferred to opt for a support role within a European initiative.
Just for once, Europe did not ask better. Nicolas Sarkozy, has long been sick of seeing this Europe designed to ensure the greatness of France occupy a secondary place on the world stage, was the first to go online. He has been actively supported by , for whom a small victorious war was timely to strengthen the reputation of the strategic country on the eve of a reduction in irreversible capacity. After preparations quickly dispatched and a vague ultimatum, the military strikes against Tripoli started, initiated by the French, without consultation with their partners, but calculated to match the timing of the press conference announcing the launch of Sarkozy a historic humanitarian mission. To be honest, we must recognize that any delay would certainly have led to the fall of Benghazi.
However, issues raised by the skeptics have not been answered before or after the beginning of this war. Thus, we still wonder who the military-political superpower and its main allies seek to defend. Total mystery: nobody knows the composition of insurgent troops, nor the importance of their staff or their ability to fire, nor their intentions. And we do not know more as time passes. Flutter persisted also on Operations Command [finally, on 31 March, at NATO he returned]. Anyway, everyone knows that it is the United States who will manage the situation, because the Europeans can start a war but not end it. The aim of the operation itself is not precisely defined. Anything goes, protection of civilians in regime change or even the assassination of Gaddafi. But mostly, it seems increasingly that we are heading towards a stalemate, with a weakened that Colonel Qaddafi could not go through with his intentions, but would remain in power. And, as interference in this civil war is already underway, if Qaddafi remains in place, albeit in a Libya halved, or worse, whether to hold talks with him to reach a political compromise this will mean a defeat for the West and its regional allies.
The Libyan campaign has adverse effects. NATO has not divided, as was the case during the war in Iraq, but It is plunged into turmoil, its role is unclear, and the allies resent each other . The first victim is the European Union. As an organization, it is simply not in crisis, but this time its engine, the Franco-German broke. And if things turned really bad in North Africa, it could be fatal to the Euro-Atlantic structures.