THE US has begun conducting military airstrikes against Libyan town of Sirte. This is to defeat Daesh (the so-called IS) which is concentrated in that strategic port on the Mediterranean coast. At least seven airstrikes have been launched since Monday. So far everything looks simple and straightforward. But if you delve deep enough, you will find statements coming from White House and Pentagon are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. President Barack Obama says airstrikes are authorized as a 30-day mission. But according to the Pentagon, the new campaign has "no endpoint at this particular moment." This means what America has in mind is not a brief, limited operation. According to the Pentagon spokesman, the Libyan "Government of National Accord" (GNA) requested the anti-Daesh operations. The GNA is a governing body created by the United Nations and sent into Libya on a ship from Tunisia because the Tripoli authorities would not allow their plane to land. This is one of several factions competing for power in Libya. Yet, the GNA, says Washington, "had already made significant progress against Daesh and had essentially pushed it into a very confined area in and around Sirte." What is more, this entity advices Americans about the targets to be hit. This raises some questions. If the unity government which is yet to find its feet could "push Daesh into a very confined area in and around Sirte" what is the need for airstrikes by a superpower? Are we to conclude that Daesh is such a phantom force that the GNA without an army or security force worth the name could retake some areas under its control? Announcing the new offensive against Daesh, Obama took responsibility for not being "sufficiently attentive" to the power vacuum in Libya after an international coalition toppled the country's government in 2011. It is this power vacuum which made Libya unstable and an arms bazaar awash with all kinds of weapons. There are three governments, two rival parliaments and as many as 1700 militia groups in the country. Militia groups are ideologically divided and split along regional, tribal and local lines. It is this chaotic situation which gave the Daesh an opening to gain its first territorial foothold outside Iraq and Syria. Perhaps, Obama thinks the US should take the initiative to put an end to this state of affairs and restore a semblance of security in Libya. This can only be possible if there is a central authority whose writ runs throughout the country. Maybe, the US wants the "Government of National Accord" to assume this role and thinks the success of the fight against Daesh would invest this government with some legitimacy. All the exaggerated claims about GNA engaging Daesh militarily and succeeding in its efforts is calculated to boost its prestige and help it gain credibility. This is a laudable objective but unattainable in the present context. US willingness to carry out airstrikes in favor of GNA would make it suspect in the eyes of the Libyan people who has always resented foreign intervention in their internal affairs. The other factions competing for power would join hands to frustrate US aims. They may be opposed to Daesh but fear that Americans will turn their attention toward them once the Daesh is routed. The American airstrikes may embolden the GNA to crack down on the parts of the country that are under the sway of rival governments or militias. The result will be more violence and anarchy. With the result that US we'll be sinking more and more into the Libyan quagmire no matter which party wins in November. Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' presidential candidate, was the driving force behind US intervention in the anti-Qaddafi uprising. Her Republican rival Donald Trump has declared, "We have no choice" but to intervene once again. So the anti-Daesh offensive can be taken as a sequel to the 2011 intervention.
