While a solution to the Libyan crisis remains a touch-and-go issue, with military action from both sides followed by talk of diplomatic proposals – the standard hot and cold blowing – one of the key questions being asked right now is not only whether the whole operation will take weeks or months but rather, how true is it that there will not be an easy exit strategy?

Although the situation remains fluid and volatile, there is no doubt that the air strikes have served the purpose of facilitating the Libyan rebels’ advance. Until recently they were perceived as poorly trained, if at all, rag tag and without a command structure.

Which poses yet another question – will these poorly equipped and disorganised rebel forces make it alone, if it comes to a final push, by merely relying on Western air strikes as the latter destroy all that is left of the regime’s armour and artillery? And will the UN resolution be stretched to the limit or even beyond?

Nevertheless, what also continues to preoccupy some European countries is that the rebels’ vision remains nebulous at best.

While names are being touted as to who could effectively front the National Council, there are still elements who feel hesitant in offering blind support to a side in the Libyan conflict about which little is known so far.

These concerns are being shown by the US press itself as the fear continues to grow that there is still much that could go wrong in a post-Gaddafi Libya. Even though they will be relieved to see him go.

Even those who have supported the intervention, both from a strategic and humanitarian perspective, have been raising the question of the country’s active Islamist movement that has sent many fighters to Iraq. Although the collapse of Gaddafi’s police state would mean “greater freedom” for all Libyans, in practical terms they could even include jihadists who could try to instigate an insurgency as they did in Iraq.

The danger is also compounded by Libya’s tribalism. Very little is known about the rivalries of some 100-plus tribes and clans. The New York Times even speculated that once he’s gone, the tribes could fight one another for the spoils of Libya’s oil industry; and as in Iraq, some could form alliances with Al Qaeda.

There is genuine concern and fear that as history has shown, certain parties could assume greater influence by exploiting the disarray of transition periods and divisions within nascent, emergent or budding “democratic camps”. It has still to be seen whether Libya will ever reach that stage.

The recurrent line of thought is that relieved of the constraints of Arab police states, these Islamists are free to advance their illiberal, anti-Western agendas. And also that Islamist parties can be counted on to similarly menace an inexperienced democratic order.

This poses the question – will voters be allowed to vote freely as they did in Gaza in the past or will the springtime of the Arab world be used as an opportunity for certain big powers to reclaim their values and redeem their interests?

Not only Israeli politicians that I have met but also liberal newspapers like Haaretz are concerned that apart from shifting attention away from Iran, the weight of realpolitik interests in deciding on intervention in Libya will not escape the eyes of Arab-Islamic observers. Particularly since according to them, the absence of Western action against rulers of other Arab countries who repress civic revolts, when the West is interested in them staying in power or isn’t willing to risk soldiers’ lives, will further entrench the idea.

Almost sharing the same concern expressed by sections of the US media and certain think tanks, influential Israeli sources stated that concerning implications for Israel, it is better for their country not to take a stand. They add that while there is surely no room for sympathy for Gaddafi, it is also far from clear that those taking his place will be less hostile.

It so happens that one such commentator is Yehezkel Dror, who among other things is the author of a much-awaited book called Israeli Statecraft: National Security Challenges And Responses.

With the no-fly zone command and control operation now effectively in Nato’s hands, one can understand even more why President Barack Obama might be anxious to keep his toes out of Libyan waters. At the beginning of foreign excursions presidents normally gain in popularity. The more conflicts drag on with a direct impact on lives and the burgeoning deficit, the bigger could be the potential political fall out.

Meanwhile one cannot also ignore the fact that the US is virtually on the eve of the launch of the next presidential campaign.

I personally think that President Obama has played his cards very diligently and cautiously; moving incrementally and then moving slowly backwards, without whittling down his resolve. The accusation that he has failed to clearly define what he sees as the American endgame might be unclear to some but not necessarily to him.

But until these imponderables about the Libyan opposition are clarified, in my humble opinion an exit strategy will be deliberately delayed unduly. Or even postponed.

brincat.leo@gmail.com

www.leobrincat.com

The author, a Labour MP, is a member of the Standing House Committee on Foreign and European Affairs.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.