Dear Muammar, you blew it Strikes on Libya - a military perspective

watch this Explosions rock Libyan capital - Africa - Al Jazeera English

It’s time to call it quits. The exiles want to return. They want to see their families. They want to breath Libyan air, and touch Libyan soil. The people of Libya want the one thing you have denied them since 1969: they want their dignity back.

	Shell shocked

STOCKTON, CA

  Dear Muammar: You blew it. You really did.

If you had given up power voluntarily as Hosni and Zine El Abidine did, the new Libyan regime would have been in a much better position. They could have re-negotiated oil contracts. They would not have been beholden to any foreign powers. Libya would have been free, independent, and sovereign. Now, the rebel leadership will be forever indebted to Barack in DC, Nicolas in Paris, and David in London. You’re lucky Recep in Ankara restrained NATO.

But you had to mess things up. It’s always been all about you. You preached popular democracy, but practiced L’etat c’est moi. Now, Libya will pay a heavy price to secure its freedom. The Americans and Europeans aren’t lobbing Tomahawk cruise missiles and dropping 2000 pound bombs purely out of altruism.

There was a time people liked you. Like the time you drove around Libya in your VW Beetle evangelizing change and revolution. You were handsome in those days. You had such promise. You had a winning smile. Nelson Mandela even has a grandson named after you. You supported some good causes, like the ANC as they battled the Apartheid regime. But 42 years of your rule has only resulted in increasing tyranny and cruelty. Nobody wants to read your Green Book anymore. You’re a political Parasaurolophus, a misfit dinosaur from the heady days of Third World revolution.

Everyone knows you’re also a cold-blooded killer. Have you ever kept tabs on all the political killings, bombing victims, and other shenanigans that have turned your hands a deep bloody crimson? You have long lost legitimacy, and you have ruined Libya in slo-mo.

The Libyans at home and in the diaspora are tired. It’s time to call it quits. The exiles want to return. They want to see their families. They want to breath Libyan air, and touch Libyan soil. The people of Libya want the one thing you have denied them since 1969: they want their dignity back. They want to live lives free of fear. They are tired of being tortured, disappeared, killed, humiliated, raped, and degraded.

Even though you blew it, and the bombs are now falling, you can still exit. We can still write a happy ending. As a fellow son of Africa, I implore you to go. I am sure we can arrange something. Given your penchant for Botox, plastic surgery, and overmedication, there must be a medical spa somewhere where you can indulge in your wildest aesthetic fantasies 24/7/365. I’d even volunteer to tend to your apparent dental bruxism.

Just leave the people of Libya and the world out of it. Please, go.

Mas'ood Cajee is a longtime contributor to altmuslim.com and is a founding board member of the Muslim Peace Fellowship and former national council member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Cajee is a general dentist in San Joaquin County, Calif. He is active as an advocate for public health and literacy.

Symbolism aside, how the battle over Libya is framed is paramount for the future of the revolution in the country and the Arab world [REUTERS] As soon as the UN-mandated international protection of the Libyan people got under way, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has rushed to condemn the new "Crusaders'" war against Islam and rally national sentiment against the "Western-led military assault". These words might ring hollow today, but as he continues to prolong and escalate the war, Gaddafi hopes to turn his attempt to preserve a brutal regime into a national anti-colonial struggle. Symbolism aside, how the battle over Libya is framed is paramount for the future of the revolution in the country and the Arab world beyond. Since the first hours of the uprising in the eastern parts of the country, Gaddafi has tried to frame it as a criminal activity carried by hallucinating drug addicts and their pushers. But as soon as the desire for change turned into a reality and the revolutionaries swept through a number of cities and took over state institutions, Gaddafi began to speak of serious offense against the republic by thugs and rats that must be crushed. Later, he threatened to punish these foreign-instigated ''armed gangs'' for holding people hostage and threatening the security of the country. And when finally Libya caught international attention beyond the dramatic changes in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan dictator changed his tune once again. Bearing in mind Western public opinion, Gaddafi then advanced the ''war-on-terror'' framework where his regime is confronted by Al Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates. As more and more officials, diplomats and military personnel began to defect in favour of the revolution Gaddafi warned against betrayal of traitors and of Libyan fifth column. The regime's failure to stem the defiance of Libyans and their aspiration for change, prompted "Gaddafi junior" to threaten a civil war and "rivers of bold". Anticipating Arab condemnation of the regime's use of excessive force against civilians, the Gaddafis took the righteous path, boasting of their ''great republic'' fight against reactionary Arabs whom they cursed and mocked at their [Arab] League. And when, finally, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1973 that authorised the use of force and Western powers began to implement it, Gaddafi reverted to his favourite framework and preached a populist nationalist/Muslim struggle against Western/Christian colonial powers! Make no mistake about it, the battle over Libya did take a turn for the worse with the international intervention to protect the Libyan people and impose no-fly zone among other measures. The ongoing bombardment is and will remain a controversial subject that has already been criticised by the Arab league. Further escalation could lead to a backlash. So who bears the responsibility for turning Libya into a war zone and an object of an international military intervention? Could it be those who confronted a peaceful civil uprising for freedom with lethal force, and when it escalated into a full-fledged revolt, used aerial bombardments, heavy artillery to quell it? Libya could have and should have gone Tunisia or Egypt's path of change. But while their militaries conceded the need for regime change, in Libya the family-led powerful militias, financed and groomed to defend the regime's "country estate", sided with their pay masters. While the Gaddafis continue to show images of pro-Gaddafi demonstrators in Tripoli to offset the images of widespread anti-Gaddafi/pro-change, in reality, Libya is not divided between two visions for their country. Rather between a majority that seeks free and prosperous Libya, and a mostly small heavily-armed minority that runs or benefits from a corrupt rule. Alas, even the worse regimes in history have had following among their subjects that had a stake in the system. Needless to say, Libyans in general deserve better than to see their country ruled like a ''family farm''. That''s why they insist on taking down the regime. But the Gaddafi dynasty would not have it, threatening to take the country down with them. That is why despite all the inflamed rhetoric and populist propaganda, when all is said and done, it is the Gaddafis who bear the responsibility for the ills and misfortunes of their country. International forces, with Arab League approval, launched airstrikes on Libya on Saturday [Reuters] The international meeting in Paris has concluded; French warplanes are already conducting reconnaissance overflights; and by the time you read this airstrikes against Gaddafi's forces may already have begun. In many ways it is astonishing quickly we've moved from a no-fly zone to an operation where ground forces will clearly be the priority target, especially given the stance of most major powers just a few days ago. This is therefore the time when we will once again put Western air power to the test. Despite hugely advanced technological capabilities, the track record is not fantastic. Assumptions of what air power alone can achieve against ground forces have usually turned out to be overrated; witness for example the relatively small amount of damage done to Serbian armoured forces by NATO in 1999. Results in Afghanistan in 2001 were better, but in that case the integration of Special Forces allowed air power to be targeted in the most efficient way. Serious challenges Despite the rhetoric there are serious practical challenges ahead. Interoperability will be the first, as air forces from many different countries – not all experienced in operating together – will have to work in a coordinated fashion. This can be overcome through careful operational planning, and it is almost certain that the first operations will be carried out by NATO allies who have a practiced operational framework. Nonetheless, this factor will increase the friction of war. The second aspect is dealing with the air environment over Libya. Gaddafi's air force uses old technology, which poses only a small challenge to the advanced planes being deployed against it. However, assuming that liaison with the rebels is as limited as it appears to be, stunning photographs earlier today of a rebel MiG-23 downed in flames by Gaddafi's forces emphasise how both sides are flying similar aircraft. Gaddafi supporters form a human shield on a wall at his house in Tripoli as airstrikes were launched [Reuters] The possibility of an error is therefore enhanced, with potentially serious PR consequences, although the fact that the rebels have comparatively few aircraft does mitigate slightly. The air defence environment is also an important factor. Many of the long-range weapon systems in the east appear to be in rebel hands, and the system – although once the second most comprehensive in Africa – is old and relatively incapable. Indeed, in 1986 its performance against the US Air Force's Operation El Dorado Canyon was so poor that the Soviets sent a general to investigate why. This should therefore pose little more than a speed bump, especially to Western air forces, even in its most concentrated and effective parts around Tripoli. However, at low level the picture is very different – as at least one rebel pilot has found today, from the look of things. Whilst old, some of the ex-Soviet kit being used by Gaddafi's forces remains lethally effective. For example ZSU-23-4 armoured mobile anti-aircraft guns have been near the forefront of his advance, supporting the T-72s of the Khamis Brigade. This system can put up a hail of guided shots that can make a pilot very uncomfortable. Similarly, SA-6 surface-to-air missiles are capable and there are a plethora of man-portable devices. Add to that the vast array of heavy machine-guns mounted on trucks and one can see why low level might be an uncomfortable place to be: indeed, the only US loss in 1986 was one F-111 believed to have been downed by exactly this sort of ground fire. Of course at high altitude a pilot need not fear these aspects, but here's the rub: similar limitations in Kosovo are believed to have seriously impacted the ability of allied pilots to find and hit targets. That was in an environment where only one side was using tanks. In Libya, both sides are using pretty much the same equipment and front lines are blurred. The situation is even more confused in towns and cities, where most of the fighting is taking place. Clearly identifying who is who, and striking the right targets accurately without help from trained forward observers on the ground, will be an immense challenge that should not be downplayed. Gaddafi knows this and will no doubt be seeking to move his units closer to the rebels in order to maximise this difficulty. Air power may not be enough With this in mind the promise of no "boots on the ground" may eventually have to be revisited, despite the potential repercussions, if only to put Special Forces observers in amongst the rebels. Otherwise it is hard to see how this campaign will be effective, at least within built up areas where most fighting is taking place. Fortunately, the movement of convoys on roads and through the vast open spaces of Libya will be easier to observe and engage, but such indiscriminate targeting may raise issues of its own. Equally, a lack of intelligence could raise issues when attempting to target Gaddafi's strategic air defence assets – many of which are in built-up areas. With the 25th anniversary of Operation El Dorado Canyon rapidly approaching, the effects of collateral damage would probably only help Gaddafi’s cause. Air power is therefore not a panacea and will almost certainly not suffice to tip the balance firmly against Gaddafi, at least without great political risks being taken. At best therefore one suspects it can only bring about an uneasy truce and the de facto partition of Libya into two states. This is in line with the UN mission to protect civilians, perhaps, but it is already clear that the West wants nothing less than the total removal of Gaddafi. Amongst those who met in Paris, the main hope must therefore be that the morale boost to the rebels will be large enough to convince them to redouble their efforts, and drive further desertions from the regime. This will require rapid results in Benghazi, and so the pressure is on. Justin Crump is the CEO of Sibylline, an international security risk and intelligence consultancy, and a regular contributor to Al Jazeera English. He formerly served as a British Army officer, with operational experience in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a consultant to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is an alumnus of King’s College London and the University of Durham.