Historically, the east of Libya centred on Benghazi is quite distinct from the rest of the country and has suffered disproportionately under Col Gaddafi. It is not impossible that the country will be effectively divided while a civil war ensues. We have no mandate from the UN to intervene on the ground to help the anti-Gaddafi forces take Tripoli. We could, of course, arm them, which would allow them to defend the territory gained but we are then drifting further away from humanitarian intervention and closer to direct military involvement. More importantly, it might make it more difficult in future to secure Security Council backing for future humanitarian interventions.
From a parochial British point of view, we will want to gauge whether removing Col Gaddafi, as opposed to stopping his attacks on his own people, matters sufficiently to us as to be prepared to see our soldiers actively engaged on the ground. In reaching a decision are we motivated by a desire to protect our own security and energy supplies or are we inspired by the obvious wish of significant elements of the Libyan people to be free of the Gaddafi incubus? Almost certainly the latter.
But after the bitter experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, public opinion will want to know what the exit strategy is. If we are prepared to intervene on the ground to save Benghazi from being overrun by Col Gaddafi, how long would we be prepared to remain?
I disagree. The U.S. President did not follow his own country’s Constitution by submitting a war declaration to the Congress (the People’s representatives). Instead he acted as previous Presidents have since W.W.II (the last truly “legal” war) and usurped power not granted to him under the laws of his nation. Madame Hillary, along with the French and British governments pushed a resolution through the illegitimate institution of the so-called “United Nations Organisation” allowing an unjust war to be waged against Libya (see “Just War” theory). Most of the leaders of the West act like the absolute rulers of the past, acknowledging no higher authority other than themselves. They feel no need to put matters of war and peace to the people (who would probably oppose the aggression). An unfortunate lack of restraint has once again been exhibited in this case and it will, I fear, prove to be unwise in the long run.
Well said.
[blockquote] “So if we believe him to be such an unmitigated bad thing, should we not be moving to remove him? It sounds a good idea but there are many reasons why we need to be cautious before embracing the Blair doctrine of wholesale intervention. The Nato Kosovo intervention is often cited as the great example of successful humanitarian intervention. But as so often in the Balkans the situation was complex. Bad Serbs, good Albanian Kosovars doesn’t begin to do justice to the complexity of the situation.” [/blockquote]
Oh dear, poor Ivor Roberts has just noticed that every international situation is complex. People like him really need to stay out of commenting on international politics – it has never been simple and it never will be.
[blockquote] “Nor can the outcome be described as a triumph for human rights; oppression of Kosovars by Serbs may have stopped but there has been an ethnic cleansing in reverse with close to a quarter of a million Serbs, Roma and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo forced to flee.” [/blockquote]
Ahhh, so the correctness of an action is to be judged purely by whether it “succeeds” or not – you are right if you win, and not otherwise. In other words – NEVER fight on a point of principle, if the odds are against you. What a shame no-one told that to the Finns in 1939!
[blockquote] “Iraq, like Kosovo, was another intervention without international sanction. The United Nations Secretary General described the Iraq intervention as illegal. The United Kingdom Government’s own international lawyers were unanimous in declaring the Iraq invasion to be illegal only to be overruled by the Attorney General and to have their views concealed from Cabinet.”
[/blockquote]
A gross overstatement. Yes, you will always find people prepared to argue that any intervention by the west anywhere is “illegal”. Quite simply, it isn’t. Iraq wasn’t illegal. It may have been badly botched (initially) by US commanders who did not understand counter-insurgency warfare, but that is a different matter. Fortunately, the US found commanders who did know what they were doing, and it ended very well.
[blockquote] “This time we do have a UN Security Council resolution skilfully negotiated by David Cameron over initial United States opposition. But it does not encompass regime change; it is limited to measures to prevent attacks on the civilian population. As such it is to be welcomed and indeed applauded. But what happens when or if the imposition of the no-fly zone simply ossifies the position on the ground?” [/blockquote]
What a kindergarten-level question! *Every* military operation carries the risk of a wide variety of outcomes, many of which will not be palatable. When they occur, you reassess the situation and decide on your next move.
[blockquote] “We have no mandate from the UN to intervene on the ground to help the anti-Gaddafi forces take Tripoli.” [/blockquote]
Since no-one has yet asked for one that is hardly surprising. There may be one next week or next month, in which case the point becomes academic.
But even if there is not, a “UN mandate” is not some absolute requirement – no nation needs a UN mandate to carry out military operations. On the other hand, it is certainly preferable to get as much agreement as possible from other nations before taking any overt action. Hence why George Bush’s diplomacy in the 1990 Gulf War was such a triumph – he persuaded Arab nations to go to war against another Arab nation alongside western forces – Egyptian and Syrian soldiers fought alongside French and Americans, killing Iraqi soliders to liberate Kuwait.
[blockquote] “We could, of course, arm them, which would allow them to defend the territory gained but we are then drifting further away from humanitarian intervention and closer to direct military involvement.” [/blockquote]
So what? First weigh up all the circumstances. Then, if action is appropriate, do it.
[blockquote] “More importantly, it might make it more difficult in future to secure Security Council backing for future humanitarian interventions.” [/blockquote]
Pretzel logic – its like the proverbial quartermaster telling the soldier: “I can’t issue the item to you because then I won’t have any if someone else wants one”! Its also incorrect – getting security council backing depends on each of the five veto members deciding the particular incident is not against their particular interests at the time -past actions have nothing to do with it.
[blockquote] “In other words, the UN Security Council will remain flawed. But its judgement remains the nearest we have to an interpretative body of international law.” [/blockquote]
More pretzel logic. For the reasons the author identifies, the security council is accorded only limited respect among nations. There is no reason to make into some form of galactic senate, when it isn’t. By all means, secure the approval of as many nations as possible before taking military action. UN organs are often a good way of doing that. But they are not determinative.
[blockquote] “And how will we get out?” [/blockquote]
The same way it is usually done – think, plan, cover contingencies, and accept that military operations, like all international affairs, are never simple and never easy.