NATO air strike of Kaddafi compound: Libyan leader and Saddam Hussein put on the same scale.

World news reported today that powerful missiles badly damaged Colonel Kaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziyya compound in Tripoli early on Monday. BBC report says that the damaged buildings were the same where Kaddafi recently hosted a visit by African Union peace mission. It was perceived as a personal attack against Kaddafi, and there hardly were any evidences of military purposes on the targeted site, the BBC reporter Ian Pannel told. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13184594

This last development certainly indicated to a new remarkable milestone in Libya unrest. NATO warplanes purposed neither Libyan airplanes, nor on-ground weaponry attacking civilians armed against the regime. However after a whole month of operations within UN resolution provided limits it has become obvious that they are not sufficient to achieve a declared goal on Kaddafi to leave. And any next moves by international coalition forces are conspicuously bordering the legitimacy of operations. 

Targeting Libyan still in power leader signified acceptance of his killing as justified action to “protect civilians.” Is this a non-return point from where similar contest with Iraqi dictator lead to the occupation of the country and following killing of Saddam Hussein? The allies have faced a pressure to undertake further action as far as the airstrikes did not move the situation from a stalemate. While “boots on ground” is a debated option http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011/04/boots-on-ground-might-that-lead-for.html a more cautions and latest idea is to send in military advisers for rebels. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13148443

However deploying military advisers means deeper involvement and presence on the ground. The ghost of Iraq occupation that has not brought peace and security for Iraqi people was an imminent threat over the anti-Kaddafi forces in the whole run of the Libya crisis. The implications can be even more precarious in Arab public opinion so far as simple comparisons can demonstrate.

Muammar Kaddafi’s patriotic rhetoric was not shadowed by attacking any other Arab state and nation to justify forceful dismiss, let alone his killing.  Benefits of Libyan social programs gained considerably sympathy to Libyan government and might remain as reminiscences of better life that could hardly be secured in hardships of transitional period.  Having been authoritarian ruler himself, Kaddafi used to criticize Arab monarchies for their disloyalty to common Arab interests and often acted as a donor for common Arab initiatives and projects.  In other words Muammar Kaddafi might have challenged the Western policy in Middle East and interests of Arab monarchies but has not committed anything obviously breaching the imaginable Arab unity.

In the evidence of enhancing face-off in Syria, uncertainty in Yemen, ambiguity of Bahrain turmoil, any inaccuracies in dealing with Libyan matter and Kaddafi can enhance grievances and widen a gap with Arab public opinion, which used to create a ground for the growth of radical sentiments and confrontation that should belong to the past but not to forge the future of the region.