The resolution (UNSC Resolution 1973) also authorizes "all necessary measures" to stop the Libyan loyalists from attacking civilians, although the resolution says that it does not authorize the introduction of ground troops as an occupation force. That would seem to leave room for introducing ground forces to support the air campaign.
The resolution also calls for a ceasefire, which the Libyans have apparently accepted:
Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa says Libya is declaring an immediate cease-fire and stopping all military operations.
This could be the poison pill for the rebels which got China and Russia to refrain from using their veto. While the rebels are obviously happy to have Western-led forces apparently come to their rescue, a ceasefire right now is a problem for the rebels. It leaves the loyalists in command of the oil export centers just west of Ajdabiya. And it leaves the control of Ajdabiya itself in question. Libya and the rebels both claim to own the city. With Western and Arab aircraft authorized to strike Loyalist forces, the rebels could have reclaimed some of this recently lost territory.
But while the intervention saved the rebels from further attack, Western forces are also a leash for the rebels which provides a problem for President Obama. Having said Khaddafi must go, our wishes now will conflict with the UN which does not authorize doing anything to actually overthrow the Khaddafi government. Recall that the UN-authorized mission to eject Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 also meant that our broad political support dissolved once Kuwait was liberated, and we'd have had to drive on Baghdad alone if we wanted to (as we largely did 12 years later).
So Khaddafi won't go. Khaddafi took important territory and then accepted (apparently) a ceasefire. And the rebels, while secure in their bastion, can't actually mount an offensive without violating the UNSC resolution. And we can't help them in the face of will of the international community, obviously.
In regard to the military side, the French and British are taking the lead right now, with Italy agreeing to the use of their bases. And Denmark and Qatar agreed to take part, it seems. We may help (and I assume we'd at least need to help with support planes) but it is clear that significant strike campaigns would need our combat aircraft, too. If there is a ceasefire, that might not be necessary.
But the net effect of the resolution is to save both rebels and Khaddafi, splitting the country between west and east, for the most part (what happens to isolated Misrata?), and putting us in the position of facing a stalemate along that east-west line with the city of Ajdabiya the frontline (and who gets it in the ceasefire?). Oh, and a lot of Libyans won't be protected at all since they lie on the wrong side of the de facto border under Khaddafi's rule.
We shall see how the international community manages to enforce this resolution--including sanctions on Khaddafi--after months or years roll by and Khaddafi fills the world with pictures of starving children suffering under a Crusader sanctions regime. How will the international community react when Khaddafi hunts down the disloyal in his part of Libya in the months and years to follow? How long will Western nations want to pay to run aircraft over Libya in support of UNSC 1973?
In the short run, this no-fly plus zone has scared the loyalists into backing off for now. So that is a positive. But I believe we would have been better off to directly (and quickly) support the rebels with as many willing allies as we could find, as I've set out before, that would have allowed the rebels to defend themselves and eventually mount an offensive against the loyalists to win the civil war. We didn't need to grant the UN the power to veto doing the right thing by all Libyans.
So now we'll have a DMZ with a rump Khaddafi regime that will reflip to become a junior member of the Axis of Evil just to survive.
UPDATE: I think we'd be better off if the rebels declare independence, at this point, rather than face a long standoff. That's my initial reaction, at least.
UPDATE: Interesting development on the issue of where the line between loyalist- and rebel-controlled territory will be drawn:
Clinton said Friday that the first goal of international action is to end the violence in Libya.
She said: "We have to see a very clear set of decisions" by Gadhafi's forces. She says that means forces must pull "a significant distance away from the east." That's where Gadhafi's forces are fighting rebels seeking his ouster.
If the loyalists pull back, that puts the rebels potentially in contol of those locations west of Ajdabiya (like Ras Lanouf and Burayqah/Brega) that would give the rebels oil export resources.
Of course, doesn't this go beyond the UNSC resolution? What do we do if Khaddafi refuses to pull back and simply declares a ceasefire in place? Doesn't that put is another dilemma of demanding something and doing nothing to get it? Would the international community back us in compelling the loyalists to pull back? What do we do if the rebels attempt to push the loyalists back despite the ceasefire? What do we do if there are new uprisings in the west against Khaddafi?
UPDATE: Spain, Canada, and the UAE may participate. And Egypt--which sent special forces in early to help the rebels--is sending small arms and ammunition. I'd rather have an Egyptian ground invasion, but the resolution seems to rule that out. See here and here.
One other thought: Are we really about to get involved in a military conflict of choice with Libya under United Nations and Arab League blessing but without Congressional authorization? Huh. Fancy that.
Oh, and according the the WSJ article above, somebody did what I've advocated for several weeks now:
Rebel forces in the past 24 hours appeared to make some progress fending off pro-Gadhafi forces' assaults and have rolled out new weapons for the first time since the uprising began last month. Among them are rebel tanks that have taken up positions on the front lines in recent days. Rebels also launched fighter-jet attacks on government positions on Wednesday for the first time so far.
The tanks and fighter jets are believed to have been among the weapons seized by rebels from defected units of the Libyan army in the eastern half of the country, but they have received spare parts or trained mechanics from outside the country to help them deploy them, some rebel officials have speculated.
If we had a hand in putting those captured weapons in service, kudos to the Obama administration.
UPDATE: Saudi Arabia and Jordan may contribute warplanes, too.
