(4 of 4)
Since 1973, U.S. naval vessels have operated inside the gulf four times, most recently in July 1979. Last week's venture into the disputed area—the first during the current Administration—was carefully planned. The naval exercise was cleared in July by the National Security Council. Shortly thereafter, the commander of Task Force 60, Rear Admiral James Service, was called to Washington to discuss the operation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The reason: the exercise was regarded as a subject of "great complexity," said a Pentagon spokesman, and one that was "not without risk." While in Washington, Service reviewed the rules of engagement covering the circumstances under which an airman may open fire on hostile forces. The Administration decided that 1) the U.S. would show Gaddafi that it did not accept his claim to a slice of the Mediterranean and 2) if the Libyans attacked, the U.S. would reply in kind.
Exactly why a Libyan pilot did attack last week remained a matter of conjecture. After all, two score Libyan planes had entered the area and left peacefully before the clash, and at least eight more appeared later. The pilot who fired the Atoll missile must surely have known that he was facing superior American aircraft; in any case, at least two Libyan MiG-23s, much more advanced aircraft than the Su-22s, were in the area of the dogfight and did not intervene. Did Tripoli order the attack or did the pilot panic? Did he make a mistake of bravado or simply trigger the Atoll by accident? Or did he perhaps believe that, as had happened at least once before, in 1973, the American planes would not return fire?
Throughout Europe, the reaction to the incident was fairly restrained. The British government seemed sympathetic to the U.S. action, though some London papers felt that Washington had overstepped. In France, which has had its own troubles with Gaddafi, public opinion seemed to favor Reagan. The left-leaning Le Monde thought the new Administration had adopted "a doctrine of rising immediately to the challenges that are addressed to it." In Moscow, which regards Gaddafi as one of its few friends in the Arab world, a TV commentator declared that Washington's "piratical action" had caused "a storm of indignation around the world."
In the Middle East, Gaddafi was supported by the Palestine Liberation Organization, Syria, Algeria and South Yemen. P.L.O. Chairman Yasser Arafat, whose commandos have received sizable amounts of arms and ammunition from Libya this year, called the air clash "the beginning of a new phase in the conspiracy against Libya and the Arab nation." Israelis, on the other hand, were relieved. "This will make our lives much easier," said a high-ranking officer in Jerusalem. As for Gaddafi's old enemy Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian President said nothing, perhaps to avoid the appearance of gloating. After weeks of rumors that the American maneuvers were an effort to test Gaddafi, many Arabs were simply nonplused. As the Beirut daily an-Nahar noted, Washington might just as well have issued invitations to the air battle. By whatever name—provocation or challenge—it had perhaps not come as all that much of a surprise.
—By William E. Smith.
Reported by Bruce W. Nelan/Washington and William Stewart/Beirut