RETHINKING SECURITY

Roland Paris has perhaps the most fair-minded look at the legacy (in Jan 2012) of the Libya intervention, although little of it probably will be new to many.

Some key points from his piece: 

• Libyan rebels would not have prevailed without air power. While this fact may seem banal, it explains the reason why the “no-fly” zone turned into the “no-drive” zone. Without NATO air support, they would have been crushed outright. Hence civilian protection was a de facto commitment to regime change. 

• NATO and Gaddafi were both in unfavorable strategic positions—one actor an unwieldy coalition, the other an embattled autocrat, and it was largely a race to see whether Gaddafi could wait it out until growing European divisions and material shortfalls crippled the mission. He could not, and thus fell.

• Emerging powers noticed that a civilian protection mission became a regime change operation, and now are moving aggressively to halt future recurrences.

That being said, I would have appreciated more of an analysis on Libya’s long-term prospects for order, which is not very much addressed but far from clear.