A while back I posted a piece about the then impending air strikes against Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and suggested that we should stop the bombing for a number of reasons. In this post I want to look back at those reasons and see whether they still stand up to scrutiny three months after the bombing started.
  • My first stated reason was that innocent people would be killed by allied strikes.
    • To be fair it would appear that very few civilians have lost their lives in this conflict as a result of NATO strikes. Precision bombing has actually meant just that. There have been casualties, of course, and even one is too many but I feel that on whole NATO has done well on this score.
    • That doesn’t mean, however, that innocent people have not been killed. On both sides of this conflict the death toll has been significant and while so little emphasis is put on a negotiated settlement things can only get worse. Whilst NATO tactics may have saved lives, therefore, its overall strategy – the bigger picture – of providing cover for the ‘rebels’ and possibly arming them has probably only made things worse.
  • My second reason was that the UN resolution in favour of a no-fly zone had already morphed into something closer to a military attack.
    • It surely must be clear by now that NATO has done far more than just provide air cover for the besieged ‘rebels’. Wave upon wave of air-strikes have not only decimated Gaddafi’s military machine but also destroyed a lot of the country’s infrastructure. The introduction of attack helicopters meant that we were as close to having a ground force in operation as we could be without actually having boots on the ground. Both the UK and France do have a small number of ‘military advisors’ within Libya – reminiscent of the ‘mission creep’ situation that developed in the Vietnam War. Should Gaddafi manage to hold onto power for much longer we can expect calls for a ground force to grow – possibly leading to yet another occupying force by the West in an Arab country.
  • The third reason against involvement in the Libyan crisis was the stance of the Arab League, which had been in favour but appeared to be weakening.
    • Whilst they still seem to be broadly in favour of what is happening in Libya, they have not been so willing to see Western involvement in Syria or any other Arab country facing popular revolt. This inconsistency should concern us – though it is no worse than the inconsistency displayed by the West over the exact same situations.
  • Reason number four was my concern about rebuilding a divided nation post-conflict.
    • This may well be the saddest point of them all. The divisions created by this situation will take generations to heal. While there have been reports of serious war crimes perpetrated by Gaddafi forces, the rebels do not have clean hands either. The level of bitterness and anger that is being stirred up will leave Libya in a perilous state when the fighting comes to an end.
  • My final point was about the wholly unprincipled nature of Western countries’ involvement when so many of them had been selling arms to Gaddafi only a few months before the conflict began.
    • There is no expectation whatsoever that this will change. Indeed there are credible reports that the ‘rebels’ are being armed through Tunisia right now with France now being identified as one country doing such a thing.
It was reported last week that in the first three months of the conflict the UK alone has spent £250 million on the Libyan operation. One wonders whether Gaddafi would have fled his country to a safe haven for a fraction of that cost, saving us not only a huge amount in financial terms but more importantly in human terms too.


Share