"Libya Risks Armed Conflict"
An opinion article by Libyan seasoned writer Jumaa Bouklib published in the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat has laid bare the grim realities behind Libya’s ongoing crisis, focusing on the recent conflict in Tripoli. The article argues that the recent fighting has “revealed many things — not really hidden secrets — but brought them clearly to the surface,” making the situation “clearer than clear” to Libyans across the country. It emphasises that the political and military crisis has become so complex and entrenched that peaceful solutions like negotiation or reconciliation are no longer viable because “the bridges have been burned or destroyed.”
Reflecting on this bleak reality, the author contends that “the military solution is, in my opinion, the only remaining way out for all parties,” invoking a proverb meaning that burning by fire is the last resort. The article warns that unless armed conflict occurs, the crisis risks continuing indefinitely, deepening hostilities among factions and paralyzing the nation. Yet, if war does break out, it will be catastrophic, with “Tripoli’s streets, squares, and other cities becoming its battlefields.”
The article also highlights the failure of the United Nations mission to find a peaceful political solution, noting “the failure of the United Nations mission to open a breach in the wall leading to a peaceful exit through elections.” This international deadlock, the author argues, has only reinforced the sense of despair and stalemate.
Further, the author foresees the conflict spreading beyond Tripoli to include armed groups in cities such as Zawiya, Misrata, Rashfana, and the Western Mountains. The bleak imagery captures this expansion with the statement: “the winners in that war will raise their flags while standing on piles of rubble and ash,” underlining the devastating cost of any victory.
Recognising differing perspectives, the article notes that while some may consider this analysis “pessimistic” or lacking realism, others see it as a truthful reflection of Libya’s predicament. It draws attention to the importance of covert political calculations behind the scenes, highlighting the secret manoeuvrings within camps loyal to Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh and his opponents.
On the eastern front, the article discusses Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, who from his command centre in Benghazi, has pledged that the armed forces “were, and will remain, at the disposal of the people, and have the first and last word,” promising they “will have the final say at the decisive moment.” The article notes that Haftar’s recent troop movements west towards Sirte appear more strategic—to “deprive the Tripoli government of Misrata’s support”—than overtly confrontational.
Turning to Tripoli, the article examines protests staged in support of Dbeibeh’s government, which called for an end to militias. However, it raises doubts about the protests’ legitimacy, stating that demonstrators were “paid,” although this remains unconfirmed. These protests aimed to counter a prior demonstration by the “popular movement” calling for Dbeibeh’s removal, with the latter promising a “million-man demonstration” soon.
The author argues that such peaceful protests are unlikely to force a change in government or convince militias to disarm, instead warning that continued unrest “will raise the temperature of hostility” and “pour more oil on the fire of the blazing enmity.” The article ends with a stark forecast of two possible scenarios: either one side resorts to violence against protests (less likely), or both sides escalate suddenly to “militarily settle the conflict,” which the author regards as “the most probable and worst-case outcome.”
In sum, the article presents a sobering, if pessimistic, analysis of Libya’s deadlock. It stresses that the country’s divisions are deep, international efforts have failed, and peace seems elusive. Unless there is a significant shift, Libya appears poised for further destructive conflict, with all sides facing ruin and hardship.