The situation on the ground in Libya has been in constant flux since violence and protests broke out in mid-February. In the air, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi assaulted civilians in a slew of bombings and shootings roughly a week after the start of the protests. These attacks came after escalating violence against civilians by mercenaries, and forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi.
The continued indiscriminate attacks by the Libyan leader on civilians in rebel-dominated cities like Benghazi and Misurata eventually prompted UN authorized international military action. UN Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, approved, among other things, a no-fly zone over Libya, an immediate cease-fire and end to violence against civilians, and Member States’ use of “all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.”
Air assaults and sea strikes against Qaddafi forces and strategic ground targets began two days after the Security Council Resolution, and shortly after Colonel Qaddafi did not carry through on promises to commence a cease-fire. 
The United States led the intervention, supported by Great Britain and France, for roughly the first week. The U.S. made it known from the onset that it would lead the strikes in the beginning, but wanted to hand off control to an international coalition soon after. After the a week of U.S. leadership, filled with confusion and debate over who would be leading the intervention after the U.S. decreased its role in the military action, NATO agreed to take control of the UN-authorized mission. The United States, Great Britain and France have remained, to date, the largest contributors to the attacks on Qaddafi targets.
The crisis in Libya has included: the emergence of a rebel group that has received international criticism for its deficient abilities as a military force, possible inclusion of fighters loyal to al-Qaeda and lack of leadership; the defection of one of Qaddafi’s most trusted Libyan officials and suspected-war criminal, Moussa Koussa; calls from Colonel Qaddafi’s sons, Seif and Saadi, for a constitutional democracy led by one of the current Libyan leader’s offspring; NATO mishaps, including the accidental bombing of a rebel convoy on April 7.
Throughout the conflict, there has been a continuous state of uncertainty as to which side has the upper hand. During one short period, Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi will be overwhelming the rebels, while a time shortly after will find rebel forces successfully advancing their siege in various Libyan cities. All the while, international forces continue to bomb Libya with the specific purpose of protecting citizens, as authorized by the Security Council. In doing so, international forces are aiding the fight of the rebels against Qaddafi, though this aspect of military involvement is not explicitly authorized in Resolution 1973; the strategic aid to rebels is a consequence of NATO’s mission to protect civilians.
Recent attempts at diplomacy have included the African Union as a primary mediating party. Officials from the AU met with Qaddafi on April 10th to discuss a possible peace agreement between him and rebel leadership. The Washington Post reported that Qaddafi told presidents of five African states that he supported the AU’s attempts to broker a deal that would include, “the deployment of an effective and credible monitoring mechanism, an immediate cease-fire, the free delivery of humanitarian aid, the protection of foreigners in Libya, and to open talks between the rebels and the government.”
The following day, The New York Times reported rebel leaders were not satisfied with the proposed African Union agreement, because it did not require the departure of Qaddafi, his sons and his inner circle from Libya, the primary goal of the rebel group. Rebels were also dissatisfied, wrote Kareem Fahim from The Times, that the agreement called for “reform within the current Libyan political system,” rather than the establishment of a new, more progressive system.
Following the failure of the AU proposal, diplomatic meetings took place in Qatar, on April 13, between rebel leaders, and NATO, Arab and African ministers. The talks took place amidst calls from Great Britain and France to increase the intensity of bombings in Libya, while NATO and the United States claim that “the coalition was already doing everything it could within the United Nations mandate to halt attacks by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces,” wrote Times reporters Steven Lee Meyers and Judy Dempsey.
The stalemate in Libya has divided the international coalition intervening in the country as to what the proper next step might be. Thoughts of coalition countries providing arms to rebel forces have been discussed throughout the conflict. The Wall Street Journal, reports that NATO officials stated, “the question of arming the rebels was one for individual nations.” The prospect of arming rebels has raised several concerns within NATO and countries of the coalition forces, such as the possibility of prolonged engagement and violation of the current UN arms embargo on Libya.
On April 15, President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, penned an op-ed piece that appeared in The International Herald Tribune and other major European newspapers, asserting that peace in Libya is dependent on the removal of Qaddafi from power. The three leaders say, “Qaddafi must go and go for good,” but what will be done to achieve this goal is still unclear.
Note: This article was last updated on April 16th.
