Coalition escalates pressure on Gaddafi
It is not clear whether the attack on the compound was also meant, at least in part, to kill Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, but it is not very likely, for six reasons. These reasons may also influence the decision of whether or not the coalition should go directly after Gaddafi, as some have suggested
- Saif, unlike his brothers, is not a senior military of intelligence commander, and does not command a militia.
- It is not clear that the pro-Gaddafi forces battling the rebels operate like a conventional military in that they wait for instructions from HQ before they make a move. Part of the adaptation by Gaddafi and his military leaders is their decision to decentralize the fight against the rebels, allowing small units in civilian cloth to engage the rebel forces at a time and place of their choosing. A decapitation campaign, aiming to kill military and political leaders, is not an effective strategy against the anti-guerrilla guerrilla tactics Gaddafi has adopted.
- The war against Gaddafi is not only a war aiming to gain and hold territory, but a war over public opinion, perception, and psychology. Killing civilians, especially children, is not helpful on this front.
- The dramatic visual images of this air strike, and the death of people disconnected from political and military leadership, especially children, will likely harden opposition to the war from countries like Russia and China amongst others.
- Alliance members like Germany and Turkey, who were never enthusiastic about the military campaign, may decide to invest more effort to stop it
- Arab and African public opinion is not going to look kindly at civilians being killed by NATO bombs.
The coalition leaders may want to look at Israel’s experience on this issue. Israel has been much more aggressive than the United States in pursuing a targeted assassination campaign against leaders of Palestinian organizations and Hezbollah. Although Israel still assassinates people it considers dangerous (of late, mostly Iranian nuclear weapons scientists), it is more judicious and careful about is targets and about the operational aspects of such operations. One reason was the bad press Israel received after the killing of Hamas leader Salah Shehade.
Shehade was the leader of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, one of Hamas’s more active militant outfits responsible for many attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers. Shehada was promoted to the position after Israel, in January 1996, assassinated the leader of the group, Yahya Ayash, with an exploding cell phone.
On 22 July 2002, the Israeli Air Force targeted the building in which Shahade was hiding using a 1-ton bomb dropped by a F-16 plane in a densely populated neighborhood of Gaza City. Fifteen people were killed, including Shahade, his wife and 9 children. Fifty others required medical attention as a result of the attack.
The legal and moral issues attending to the attempts on foreign leaders’ lives are now dividing Washington. Senator Lindsey graham (R-North Carolina) told Fox news that “[Gaddafi] is not a foreign leader. In my view, he’s a murderer,” Graham said. “He’s the source of the problem. He is not the legitimate leader of Libya. He should be brought to justice or killed.”
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), on the other hand told CBS that assassinating world leaders is “not as easy as you think.” He urged the Obama administration to instead deploy top U.S. military aircraft back into the fight while lending more support to the rebels. “We should be taking out (Qaddafi’s) command and control, and if he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine.”
The continuing ineffectiveness of the anti-Gaddafi rebels, and the flexibility and adaptability of the pro-Gaddafi forces, make it necessary for the coalition leaders to think of new tactics and approaches. Targeting the Gaddafi family may be a tempting option, but the downside may be larger than the reward.
