´óÏó´«Ã½

Commentators react to the news that military advisors are being sent to Libya.

that we may see more external military intervention in Libya:

"Even though this may make sense as the conflict lurches into a stalemate, the bloody-minded stubbornness of the Gaddafi regime - and its refusal to stop imperiling the lives of its own people - is clearly spurring the intervention's original French and British architects to raise the heat on Tripoli and boost the rebel cause. It may not be long before the current team of "advisers" sent to Benghazi is coordinating the distribution of foreign arms and military equipment to rebel forces, if that is not already underway."

that the latest move is not military intervention:

"The dispatch of a group of military officers to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi changes the shape of British involvement in Libya, and considerably. It should not, however, be understood as 'boots on the ground'. At most, it is a small selection of sensible shoes on the ground.
Ìý
"There is a difference. The ten-strong British group, along with a French group of a similar size, will not have a combat role. Instead, they will be advising Colonel Gaddafi's opponents on how to improve military organisation, and better protect civilians from his murderous onslaught."

to the news that Britain is sending military advisers to Libya by saying "this is what mission creep looks like":

"Without outside help in arms and possibly international back-up they will not be able to accomplish what everyone wants - getting rid of Col Gaddafi. With the Libyan effort bogged down, Gaddafi still in place, and no sign of any momentum to force him out, it is no wonder that those allies still committed to this adventure are looking for ways to help the rebels get on with the job. Italy is talking of sending military help. David Cameron and his ministers have tied themselves in knots to avoid ruling out military help. And now we have it. The Prime Minister will have to face unavoidable charges that this is mission creep, and it will be tempting to recall how John F Kennedy started with military 'advisers' in Vietnam."

that the latest move indicates mission creep and wonders how this can fit in with UN agreements:

"It's worth recalling that UN security council resolution 1973, passed last month, does not authorise member states to support the rebels, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise an Iraq-style ground invasion or military occupation, in any shape or form, size or scale. But in reality, much of this is now happening, willy-nilly. Make no mistake: the creep is on."

Finally, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations as he questions an assumption Western military action is based on - that Libya has tribalism:

"Few narratives of this conflict have been more enduring than the notion that tribalism dominates Libya's politics. But such tribalism has been significantly eroded, both by Col Gaddafi's hostility and economic modernisation. Libya's regime has long stressed that the nation was its most important unit. So traditional forces had to be suppressed."