Libya Update: What's next?

The situation in Libya is looking grim and stagnant as opposition forces remain unable to make any real progress in the war against Moammar Gaddafi's government.  The UN's recent call for a cease-fire has had little impact, and conditions for many Libyan civilians remain harsh.  The UN has had some success in gaining access to civilians in need of humanitarian assistance in major Libyan cities such as the rebel stronghold Benghazi, Misrata, and even Gadaffi-controlled Tripoli.

But as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said on Monday, it appears the struggle has become a "stalemate" between a strong, organized government force and a weak, confused rebel army, relying heavily on NATO airstrikes.  NATO is having its own share of problems, as officials have said they haven't been able to target Gaddafi's troops from above because of unreliable intelligence and the camouflage techniques being used by the government's forces.  People in Misrata, an opposition-held town currently besieged by Gaddafi's troops, are unsatisfied with NATO's efforts.  They continue to be bombarded with rockets and mortar bombs every day.

The questions before the coalition forces of NATO are:  Should NATO's presence in Libya increase?  And are ground troops needed to avert a perpetual stalemate?  The collaborative statement by U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy made clear the leaders' commitment to seeing the job through to the end.  They declared, "so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds."  But is expanding the mission beyond the no-fly zone an option?

It is according to Prime Minister David Cameron.  Mr. Cameron said, "We have to ask ourselves what more can we do to protect civilian life and to stop Gaddafi's war machine unleashing such hell on his own people."  He would not rule out the possibility of deploying British troops on the ground in Libya.  However Resolution 1973, which authorizes the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, also contains a clause "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form," which makes the deployment of troops on the ground by any nation more difficult.

The prospect of British and French troops on the ground in Libya appears to be a very real possibility at the moment, although it's in conflict with Prime Minister Cameron's strong affirmation that he would not violate the UN Security Council Resolution.  Mr. Cameron's recent statements and Mr. Sarkozy's proactive use of force in Côte D'Ivoire two weeks ago make intensified intervention by those two nations highly plausible.  But what about the United States?  This writer thinks that the U.S. should support continued UN and NGO involvement in Libya, but that the President needs to keep his commitment and not deploy any ground troops in Libya.  We can play our part in NATO and help with the humanitarian mission in Libya as well as pressuring the Gaddafi regime to cede power to the Libyan people.  But we should refrain from sending U.S. troops to fight on the ground.