The Rand corporation point of view of the Lybian 2011 campaign.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR676.html
about the French part :
CHAPTER SEVEN The French Experience: Sarkozy’s War? by Camille Grand Introduction
The Libyan campaign was unique in many respects among recent French military engagements, to the point that some commentators have called this operation “Sarkozy’s War,”1 a reference to the 2010 Bob Woodward book Obama’s Wars about the U.S. president’s efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This emphasis on the Libya campaign in the narrative about Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency overshadows France’s recent military endeavors elsewhere. After all, in 2011, France did send more troops and spent more money than the United States did in Afghanistan, and engaged its forces to facilitate a successful political transition in Ivory Coast. Yet several important factors make Libya stand out: • A genuine French leadership (or co-leadership) in the diplomatic management of the crisis and the conduct of military operations, making France much more than a contributor to a U.S.-led operation. •
A strong moral, legal, and political case in the context of the Arab Spring, combining a clear mandate with a United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR 1973), the moral imperative of the responsibility to protect (R2P), and the support of many Arab countries. • A successful military campaign combining an appropriate use of force, few civilian casualties, and a successful political outcome with the fall of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. • The personal involvement of Sarkozy, who decided very early in the crisis to take the lead and who was directly involved in the daily conduct of operations.
Both during and after the campaign, the Sarkozy administration developed the storytelling2 that places the emphasis on the central French (and to a lesser extent British) role while underplaying the United States’ role. Separate from this narrative, however, the conflict offers some interesting lessons, both from an operational standpoint and from a political-military perspective, and which may prove relevant to future decisions about military interventions.
Why and How Did France Decide to Act?
Domestic politics, and the appeal in an election year of Sarkozy being perceived as a strong commander-in-chief, cannot explain alone the French decision to take the lead in the Libyan affair. Nor can the support of French “intellectuals” such as the popular author and media figure Bernard-Henri Lévy.
In digging deeper into France’s motivations, the memories of Srebrenica and other atrocities committed during the Balkan wars played an important role, as did the need to express clear support to the Arab revolts by not allowing the Qaddafi regime to crush the rebellion in the Arab Spring’s first weeks.
From a strategic perspective, Libya also was an opportunity for some Europeans to demonstrate they could take the lead in managing a significant crisis in the Mediterranean at a time when the United States was perceived as reluctant to engage in another campaign when its strategic interests were not obviously involved. In that context, Sarkozy’s partnership with British Prime Minister David Cameron was interesting, as the Libyan conflict took place a couple of months after the signing in Lancaster House of a series of historic treaties expanding Franco-British defense cooperation. For the two European leaders, it was an opportunity to make a point about the possible use of force in the management of international crises and signal they were still able to take part jointly in a crisis in the vicinity of Europe.
Libya and the Arab Spring
The Libyan crisis started when the protests began in Benghazi on February 15, 2011, prompting Qaddafi’s security forces to begin a brutal crackdown. By February 20, protestors had taken control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi, building a significant anti-Qaddafi force. These events were taking place weeks after protesters in Tunisia and Egypt had successfully brought about the demise of local authoritarian regimes, with Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fleeing from Tunis and Hosni Mubarak withdrawing from power in Cairo. During the first phase of the Arab Spring, France, along with most Western diplomacies, was slow to react with embarrassing initial support to Ben Ali and Mubarak, who were both key partners in French Mediterranean diplomacy (in particular on Sarkozy’s Union for the Mediterranean project since 2008). When the Libyan crisis unfolded, France was in the midst of a rapid reappraisal of its diplomatic stance. Michèle Alliot-Marie resigned as foreign minister, and her replacement was Alain Juppé, who had been prime minister from 1995 to 1997 and foreign minister during the pivotal Bosnia events from 1993 to 1995. Sarkozy and Juppé quickly advocated a strong international response to the events in Libya, both as a genuine effort to address the Libyan crisis and as a way to end a perceived French political and diplomatic failure to address the Arab Spring.
France’s Long and Complicated Relationship with Qaddafi’s Libya
Libya was not a former French colony like other Maghreb countries such as Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, and the relationship between the two countries after Qaddafi’s coup was tortuous. In the 1970s, France supported the new regime, which soon became a major customer for French weaponry. In the 1980s, however, France was in direct confrontation with Qaddafi’s forces and proxies in Chad, and strongly supported the Chadian efforts to expel Libyan forces from their territory. Operation Epervier, which started in February 1986 to defend Chadian sovereignty, is still ongoing. France nevertheless distanced itself from the April 1986 U.S. Operation El Dorado Canyon by denying overflight to U.S. aircraft attacking Libya from British bases after a terrorist attack in Berlin. Later in the decade, France was directly confronted with Libyan statesponsored terrorism with the bombing of UTA Flight 772, bound from Chad to Paris, in September 1989 (one year after Lockerbie), killing all 170 people aboard. After a freeze in the 1990s, bilateral relations slowly resumed in 2003 and 2004 with a settlement on the past terrorist attacks.
The strange state visit of Qaddafi to Paris in December 2007, during which the Libyan dictator embarrassed Sarkozy, was the high (or low) point of a French attempt to restore good relations and win commercial contracts with a normalized Libya, which many world leaders sought at the time. From that visit, Sarkozy is reputed to have learned that Qaddafi was “crazy and unreliable,” an argument he often made during the 2011 crisis. From this mixed experience with Qaddafi’s Libya, France drew some harsh lessons that partially explain its rather hawkish stance. Because Qaddafi was a known international political figure, the French public was deemed ready to understand the need to intervene.
Assessment of the Humanitarian and Political Situation
A second key element in the decision to intervene was the humanitarian assessment and the perceived immediate risk that Qaddafi forces would crush the revolt in Benghazi. A strong sense of humanitarian urgency prevailed in the decision to act as well as in the later justification of the war. Throughout the war, the Qaddafi forces’ violence against civilians served as a useful reminder of the fundamental reason behind intervention. The decision to first strike Qaddafi’s forces assaulting Benghazi as early as March 19 (less than 48 hours after the adoption of UNSCR 1973) was both a military and political choice aimed at avoiding that city’s fall and the anticipated subsequent bloodbath. The Security Council resolution mandated protecting civilians from harm, an objective that subsequently drove political and military decisions. It also was a major military constraint, though NATO forces quite successfully responded to the intense pressure not to harm civilians.
The U.N. Process and the Decision to Act Militarily
It took more than two months after the Libyan upheaval in Benghazi to secure a decision to act. France played a major part in that process, although its position evolved throughout the process as the situation in Libya worsened and as international support grew for an operation under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. At first, France emphasized sanctions, with Sarkozy proposing on February 23 that the European Union adopt sanctions on Libyan leaders.
After U.N. SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon encouraged the U.N. Security Council to act on Libya, France and Britain called on the U.N. to approve an arms embargo as well as sanctions. At the time, French leaders were still excluding the military option.
On February 26, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1970, which called for an immediate end to the violence, leveled sanctions against Qaddafi and other figures of his regime, and referred Libya to the International Criminal Court, calling for a investigation by the body into “widespread and systematic attacks” against civilians. Later in the month, the EU adopted further sanctions, including an arms embargo. When the discussion of a no-fly zone (NFZ) started in late February, France insisted on the need for regional support and a U.N. mandate, and appeared skeptical about NATO involvement. In this early stage, the diplomatic debate about the no-fly zone did not go into details about the military dimensions of its implementation.
Furthermore, post-war accounts note the French were aware a no-fly zone would be insufficient, and that as early as March 1, they already were considering the option of targeted strikes as the only way to prevent massacres.5 At the political level, an NFZ was primarily perceived as an option short of a full-fledged military intervention on the ground and an easier sell in the U.N. At the time, many had in mind some precise precedents, in particular the 1991–2003 NFZ over Northern and Southern Iraq preventing Saddam Hussein from using airpower against Kurdish and Shiite regions, and Operation Deny Flight over Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1993–1995, both pursuing humanitarian objectives. During this period of intense diplomatic activity, the French closely consulted with their British counterparts to build international support for additional pressure on Qaddafi, including military options. The Gulf Cooperation Council’s calls for a no-fly zone unlocked the debate in early March by creating momentum for regional support. It was followed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which announced its support for a no-fly zone over Libya. At the time, NATO was divided, as the United States and Germany were reported to be opposed to a no-fly zone while Britain and France were working on a draft resolution at the U.N. calling for one. France’s engagement took a new turn when on March 10 it became the first Western country to recognize the Libyan National Transition Council (NTC) as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. During a European Union summit on March 11, the EU reached agreement to consider “all necessary options” to protect civilians in Libya. The statement did not refer to recent French and British calls for a no-fly zone. It did note that any proposed military action would require a clear legal basis, regional support, and a clear objective. This statement sought to bridge divisions within the EU between Germany’s open skepticism over the use of force and France’s and Britain’s clear contemplation of airstrikes. On March 12, the League of Arab States called on the Security Council to impose a no-fly zone that could meet the condition that many had set for regional support. As France was pushing in New York in favor of a UNSC authorization for a no-fly zone, Qaddafi’s forces regained most of the territory they had lost to rebel forces and began preparing an assault on the opposition stronghold of Benghazi. At this point, the Obama administration shifted policy and began to press the Security Council to authorize an international coalition featuring representation from Arab states to take military action. The United States took the lead in the drafting of the UNSC resolution, which France and Britain supported. Three senior Obama administration officials (National Security Council staff member Samantha Power, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) played important roles in convincing the President to go beyond the more cautious approach being advocated by those reluctant to see America engaged in another war in a Muslim country. The UNSC voted on March 17 to authorize member nations to “take all necessary measures . . . to protect civilians and civilian populated areas” under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. UNSC Resolution 1973 passed with ten votes in favor and five abstentions—China, Russia, Brazil, India, and Germany. Together with the United States and Britain, France spared no effort to convince the members of the UNSC to vote in favor and not to veto the resolution. Juppé traveled to New York for the vote on Resolution 1973, and President Sarkozy personally engaged leaders of all the countries on the Security Council. The immediate threat to Benghazi and Qaddafi’s frightening comments about the fate of insurgents helped persuade some countries to vote in favor and led both China and Russia not to use their veto powers. This diplomatic campaign was successful for France, which had been at the forefront of the international debate. France worked closely with Britain and the United States, resolving some differences in the last days before the resolution was adopted. It also used its good relationships with Arab leaders in the Gulf (Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) to secure regional support and engagement. When operations started, France had secured all of its requirements for going to war: U.N. and regional support, a clear legal basis, and a mandate broad enough to allow some flexibility in conducting military operations. In spite of later quarrels about the scope of UNSCR 1973,
the French legal reading was simple: Ground operations and occupation of Libya were prohibited, while air operations to protect civilians beyond a simple no-fly zone were authorized. From a French perspective, the debates in the drafting of the resolution left little ambiguity: The UNSC had accepted the use of airpower not only to enforce a no-fly zone, but also to protect civilians through targeted strikes on Qaddafi’s forces.
EU, NATO, or Coalition of the Willing?
In the run-up to the first strikes, France was at first very reluctant to involve NATO and explored alternative options. The motivation was political, as Paris feared the political consequences of another NATO mission in a Muslim country. It sought to set up an operation involving regional players (which was later secured when Qatar, the UAE, and Jordan joined the coalition). Senior French officials publicly expressed criticism about a NATO involvement. Throughout the first period of the crisis and the first days of the conflict itself, France openly questioned the role of the Alliance, as the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on March 18: “We have always thought that a NATO operation was neither opportune nor appropriate in the [Libyan] context.”6 If an EU operation quickly was ruled out, France hoped as operations were about to begin to set up an ad hoc Franco-British headquarters. Despite the close personal relationship between Sarkozy and Cameron and the Anglo-French spirit following the Lancaster House treaties, the British choice to start planning with the Americans in Ramstein led to some bitterness in Paris. As Alastair Cameron noted, “It remains unclear whether British political officials might have endorsed a form of bilateral France-UK command-and-control arrangement, which was then superseded by advice from the British military chain of command.”7 According to military historian Jean6 Point du presse, “Adoption par le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies de la résolution 1973 sur la situation en Libye,” March 18, 2011. Translation by the author. 7 Cameron, “The Channel Axis,” in Johnson and Mueen, Short War, Long Shadow. Christophe Notin, the French armed forces had in mind a different command structure with the French Air Force’s Lyon-Montverdun air operation center serving as JFACC (it is NATO Response Force–certified up to 1,000 sorties per day), while the British Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood would serve as operations headquarters (OHQ). A French team even traveled to Northwood to prepare for such an arrangement, only to realize that their British counterparts already were preparing to deploy to Ramstein.8 Senior French military officials continue to assess, from a military point of view, that a multinationalized French, British, or Franco-British chain of command (OHQ + JFACC) could have managed planning and C2 of the operation. From a political point of view, however, it seems doubtful that other contributors would have agreed to such a command arrangement, especially a non-U.S.-led one, an option that met no support from coalition partners. The decision to operate on an ad hoc basis from Ramstein nevertheless was swiftly accepted in Paris, and senior French officers quickly were inserted into the Ramstein air operations center. France therefore went along with this coalition-of-the-willing logic under a U.S. HQ but continued to resist the handover to NATO, only accepting it under intense allied pressure. It took threats from Italians, Norwegians, and other NATO allies to impose NATO as the commanding structure, and Paris went along with this approach only when it became clear that Washington was unwilling to continue leading the coalition and that Britain had no intention of supporting the French view. Besides the political concerns about NATO being too Western, France feared that constraints from NATO allies that had been reluctant about the operation (namely, Germany and Turkey) would limit the Alliance’s ability to act. Even after the handover to Operation Unified Protector began on March 25, Paris took the unusual step of trying to limit the political control of the North Atlantic Council, insisting the handover to NATO and the Naples JFC was a “technical” decision to use the NATO “machinery” and promoting the political role of the contact group versus NATO as a political forum. France also insisted on retaining some direct operational control of its forces. Interestingly, the French narrative has since evolved, as the French now insist that Libya was a success story in part because of their return to the integrated military structures (decided in 2009) that enabled them to play a major role in the conduct of operations.
Was France in the Driver’s Seat?
France was undeniably a major player in the setting up of the Libyan operation. It was not alone in that endeavor, however. The roles played by Britain and the United States, which often were downplayed in Paris as well as by key Arab states, offer a more nuanced view than the notion of France in the driver’s seat. For all of its high-profile leadership, France’s views did not always unilaterally prevail and needed the support of others. It is nevertheless clear that Paris had a strong part in the diplomatic process and could claim co-leadership of the management of the crisis. From that perspective, a strong nexus exists between the political engagement and the military role.
