Libya

I'm not quite clear exactly what we're trying to do there. I have no overwhelming objection to dropping some loud stuff on our old enemy and perennial trouble-maker, but I want us to have some clear objectives.

A no-fly zone is a dumb idea--it annoys without much effect. I read that the French had shot at an armored vehicle; and using air power to suppress Libyan government troop movements would certainly aid the rebels more than just a "no fly zone." Daffy's loyalists/mercenaries don't need warplanes.

But who in the world are the rebels? Getting rid of Daffy in favor of Daffy II isn't an obviously useful thing to do. In Iraq we had some notion of who was who and what might be the long-term outcome if all went well; and as I noted years ago it is strategically important and Saddam was a significant threat because of that. Here I haven't a clue who is who, or whether anybody is even potentially friendly. (Though we know that Daffy is a malicious enemy.)

So what are our plans?

• Tear up Libyan air defense, crater up the runways, take out C&C from the top down, and then let the rebels fight it out themselves?
• Pick a faction and support/arm them to take over the whole mess? Years of mess; I gather the place is deeply tribal.
• Pick a faction or two and partition the country? Messy; who gets the big oil fields?
• Hammer away at the air defense and C&C and let the French decide the rest?
• Fire away dramatically but without any followup that would impede Daffy? (If his troops get into a city there's not much we can do remotely.) Sound and fury signifying nothing is a really dumb idea...

What do we want the end game to look like? (And if we don't care, why do we care enough to shoot?) ABD (Anybody But Daffy)? ABJ (Anybody But Jihadists)? ABD-or-J? (and what are we willing to commit to make that happen?) Friendly Tribe X (lots of luck with that)? French Protectorate (anybody but us stuck with it)?

I wonder if Sarkozy forced Obama's hand here. The French have had issues with Daffy for years via Chad and others.

UPDATE 20-Mar: From the BBC: "I think there is a sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a Nato umbrella," Mr Gates said. "And so the question is if there is a way we can work out Nato's command and control machinery without it being a Nato mission and without a Nato flag, and so on."

Crud. This looks muddy as all getout. Nobody would trust the Arab League to coordinate an escape from a wet paper bag, much less direct Nato troops; was this supposed to be a pro-forma Arab League mission with Nato doing the quiet deciding about whether something was useful or not? If so the Arab League is already undercutting it--they don't want to be blamed for anything at all, even if nobody could possibly believe they were in charge. CYA.