*THE BOMBING OF LIBYA*
On April 14, 1986, the United States launches air strikes against Libya in retaliation for the Libyan sponsorship of terrorism against American troops and citizens. The raid, which began shortly before 7 p.m. EST 2 a.m., April 15 in Libya, involved more than 100 U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft, and was over within an hour. Five military targets and "terrorism centers" were hit, including the headquarters of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi.
"On April 15, Libyan patrol boats fired missiles at a U.S. Navy communications station on the Italian island of Lamedusa, but the missiles fell short. There was no other major terrorist attack linked to Libya until the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 passengers and crew of that flight were killed, and 11 people on the ground perished. In the early 1990s, investigators identified Libyan intelligence agents Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah as suspects in the bombing, but Libya refused to turn them over to be tried in the United States. But in 1999--in an effort to ease United Nations sanctions against Libya--Colonel Moammar Gadhafi agreed to turn the suspects over to Scotland for trial in the Netherlands using Scottish law and prosecutors. In early 2001, al-Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, although he continues to profess his innocence and work to overturn his conviction. Fhimah was acquitted.In accordance with United Nations and American demands, Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing, though it did not express remorse. The U.N. and U.S. lifted sanctions against Libya; the country then paid each victim's family approximately $8 million in compensation. In 2004, Libya's prime minister said that the deal was the "price for peace," implying that his country only accepted responsibility to get the sanctions lifted, angering the survivors' families. He also admitted that Libya had not really accepted guilt for the bombing. Pan Am Airlines, which went bankrupt as a result of the bombing, is still seeking $4.5 billion in compensation from Libya in civil court.Qaddafi surprised many around the world when he became one of the first Muslim heads of state to denounce al-Qaida after the attacks of September 11, 2001. In 2003, he gained favor with the administration of George W. Bush when he announced the existence of a program to build weapons of mass destruction in Libya and that he would allow an international agency to inspect and dismantle them. Though some in the U.S. government pointed to this as a direct and positive consequence of the ongoing war in Iraq, others pointed out that Qaddafi had essentially been making the same offer since 1999, but had been ignored. In 2004, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Libya, one of the first western heads of state to do so in recent memory; he praised Libya during the visit as a strong ally in the international war on terror."
WHATS NEW
"The bombing of Libya has started amidst much fanfare, and we are assured that all has gone well with the initial strikes. This should not come as any surprise as the Libyan regime had virtually no real military capacity, beyond that required to subdue unarmed, or lightly armed, citizens.
On the political front, an initial “wobble” in the Arab League’s support for all this has been corrected, for now, and Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have said that they will join the aerial coalition. Kuwait and Jordan will be making “logistical” contributions. These developments are important if this is to appear as anything other than yet another U.S./U.K. led “Western” attack on a Muslim country. So what next? Everyone is hoping, though no one can say quite how, that this will be over quickly. Let us hope. Either Moammar Gadhafi will decide that his grip on power is slipping and leave, or someone from his own entourage will help him to come to that decision, possibly at the end of a gun-barrel.
Even if that happens, it is unclear who or what will succeed Gadhafi. Given the nature of the regime, it is unlikely that anyone near enough to him to oust or kill him will be a closet democrat. Moreover, holding Libya together after all this will be difficult no matter what the outcome.
Having taken a role in the process that would have led to Gadhafi’s ouster, can the international community (read: the West) be indifferent to what might replace him, especially if that involves more bloodshed or even the breakup of the country?
But what if this international air campaign goes on for a while? Gadhafi does have options to drag this out. “Volunteer” human shields are one. Given the huge political importance of minimizing civilian casualties, Gadhafi can make it more difficult for the coalition air forces to achieve their objectives.
Most importantly, Gadhafi’s main “weapon” may simply be to sit back and refuse to admit that he is beaten. So long as the only threat he faces from the coalition is from the air, he cannot be ousted from power. Unless someone on the ground (either one of his own people, or the “rebels”) does the job, he can simply wait.
It is a strange quirk of these kinds of operations that a dictator can maintain power, even if his air force is grounded and his country is being subjected to air attack, so long as he can maintain his grip of terror over at least some of the population and the country is not subject to attack by ground forces. Saddam Hussein was able to wait out “no-fly zones” over the north and south of Iraq for many years — not until ground forces invaded his country in an ill-judged war was Hussein finally ousted.
This is the nightmare of the Western countries, including Canada, who have committed forces to the aerial coalition. Domestic and international political support for the present campaign can only erode over time. Publics will get tired of this, and Arab governments will come under increasing pressure as the conditions to which a large segment of the Libyan people are subject deteriorate — something Gadhafi will be only too happy to accelerate."
By Peter Jones
Read more: MYLINK
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/could+Libya+long+time/4491049/story.html#ixzz1HS8TIkpe
