The whole idea that Haftar could compromise and talk to anybody is dubious. He has built a position for himself as a rising star. Even if you are requesting something that makes sense militarily, people will still not talk to you.
He was not supposed to drag his attack like the one on the 4th of April to days, and now it seems like it will be dragged to weeks.
He was certainly betting on the weakness of his adversary. When you do all of these things, it means you saw an opening and wanted to finish the war in 48 hours and bring your enemy to its knees.
Why would you rush and cultivate the elements of surprise if you are going to end up in a long simmering war that would last months? This upended the whole diplomacy and years of work to bring an end to the conflict.
He wanted to occupy Tripoli or other major cities, but this didn’t happen nine days after the conflict began. The resort of airstrikes is a sign that what is happening on the ground is not convincing.
This weekend he even lost parts of territory he had conquered in the past few days.
Haftar’s strategy is to disrupt transportation between Misrata and the south of Tripoli. What is interesting is that when Haftar went in, he should’ve achieved something by taking a very symbolic town and then say we have an intention to continue onward. But, he didn’t do that.
There was also the loss of the international airport, which was militarily unfortunate.
What needs to be understood is that his enemies didn’t make a big mistake in drawing in Haftar’s international allies, whether in Europe or the Arab world.
Misrata has gone slowly and they have displayed discipline and military muscle. If you’re the UAE or Egypt, what pretext do you have to send planes and intervene at the moment? Not much. You can perhaps, like we’ve been hearing in the past few days in official statements, accuse some elements in Tripoli of being terrorist groups.
What we are seeing in Libya today are two armies: One that is acting without discipline and with some power (Haftar), and another that is acting with discipline and enough power, projecting power and calm in the face of attacks that seem to be ill organized.
Moreover, the gambling is done by Haftar alone; but, that doesn’t mean that the international community is surprised to see this.
If you place a pit bull in the same room with your child, and one day the dog bites off your child’s head, would you really be surprised?
The disregard he has shown to civilian politicians is a problem. When he visited world capitals, he managed to sell the sentiment of impatience of a military leader seeking a solution.
What does impatience mean? It means a military solution in Libya, which could be regrettable, but also necessary. The problem is that many hawks in Paris, Washington and the Arab world believe in that.
If you think a good beating of your neighbour could solve your problems with him, then you are a violent person.
Isn’t it normal for the international community to root for Haftar because of his work against Islamists and his control of the situation in the south?
Not really, Tripoli militias helped in cracking down on jihadists. If we look at in and around Tripoli, we see there were less Islamists last week than there were three years ago.
But Islamists’ threat is really exaggerated in Libya. It is not a real threat.
The international community is divided into two contending camps: One that believes in pragmatic and diplomatic solution to the conflict (Italy, UK, some in France and the US), and one that is a hawkish group (French Foreign Affairs Minister Le Drian, Mohammed Ben Zayed, Mohammed Ben Salman, Sisi and Russia).
The belief in a military solution means you are oblivious to the high casualty but find it necessary to stop the conflict.
But sadly today, to avoid a civil war in Tripoli, you need Haftar to retreat and declare his retirement; and this seems unlikely.
What Haftar is trying to say through his messages to the rest of the world is: If I lose this battle today, all these states that supported me will be compelled to step in. If they don’t intervene, they lose.
Furthermore, we have three possible scenarios ahead of us.
The first one is the gradual humiliation of Haftar, where his enemies do not make the mistake of dragging in the international community.
The second is that international community intervenes by accusing terrorists of helping the government in Tripoli. As long as the word “terrorism” is used, Egyptians could use their rafales to bomb Tripoli.
Finally, the third is that Italians manage to convince Americans not to only stop tolerating the aggressive Haftar, but also to go back to an inclusive policy and save the country from a civil war. Meaning, strike a balance between the two camps; hawks versus the moderates in the world. Basically, this would be taking a step back to where things were three years ago.
As for the division of Libya, I don’t think it’s likely. The location of oil fields in the centre of the country poses a big problem. When you go into the specifics of dividing Libya, you’ll find out it is much more complicated than it seems.
2024. All rights reserved