There is no doubt that Muammar Gaddafi is a dreadful tyrant. The speed with which the rebellion against Gaddafi spread, and the brutal force used against protestors, is proof enough of wicked tyranny.
What’s more, there is good reason for Western countries to look at Gaddafi as iniquitous. The Lockerbie bombing killed 270 people on the plane and 11 Lockerbie residents. There is no reasonable doubt that Gaddafi was behind this atrocity.
The end of Gaddafi’s regime would cause few tears.
But does that mean Canada should be committing military forces to yet another war in a Muslim country? I am far from convinced.
Another war, and make no mistake, a no-fly zone is an act of war, is questionable from selfish reasons and also because it will inevitably kill many innocents.
First, and this is purely Western self-interest, Gaddafi has changed since Lockerbie. He remains a monster, but he seems to have become a monster within his own borders. Indeed, he morphed into a typical tyrant who oppresses his people but does business with Western countries. Put otherwise, Gaddafi, at least recently, posed no threat of international terrorism. But he clearly has no scruples about projecting terror and he has shown the ability so to do. Accordingly, if Canada is to attack Gaddafi (as we have already committed to do), we better make sure not to wound but to kill.
Second, an international force led, it seems, by France, Britain and Germany, with support from Canada, America and perhaps the Arab League (or parts of it) will look a lot like the alliance in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is especially so when you realize the Arab League is not made up of progressive democratic governments – the League can certainly be painted as a cat’s paw of Western powers. Whether the League actually is just a proxy is another question – I rather suspect it’s not – but the perception is important. And that perception would not be limited to Libya – fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq can be seen as self-defence (albeit broadly defined) but Libya is clearly not a defensive operation. How would people living in, say, Syria or Jordan (or London or Paris) perceive another Western intervention in a Muslim country?
Third, there is no commitment to use ground forces. That means that Libya will be bombed from above. Innocent Libyans will inevitably be killed. Retired U.S. Navy Captain Ben Renda, who flew aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone over southern Iraq in the late 1990s, was quoted in the media today saying.
"When you are sitting at 1,000 feet, or 5,000 feet or 35,000 feet, figuring out who are the civilians and who are not civilians can be particularly hard because it’s a difficult thing to do from the get-go… . Determining who are the rebel forces versus the government forces and on the assumption that mercenaries have also been brought in, figuring out which one of three buckets the good guys are in and the bad guys are in, will be exceedingly difficult - particularly if there is no ground presence, doing it strictly from the air will be challenging."
There will be significant collateral damage and such damage when linked to the suggestion that the air war is just Western imperialism may have the effect of uniting Libyans against the rebels as Quislings. It is hard to see how Libyans are helped by being bombed – one is reminded to of the Vietnam comment “we had to destroy the village to save it”.
Perhaps the no-fly zone will allow the rebels time to recover and regain some of the land they have lost. One can hope civilian losses will be minimized. But it doesn’t seem likely the no fly zone standing alone will lead to a rebel victory – indeed, at most it will permit a partition of Libya with Gadaffi ruling the west and the rebels the east. This of course would allow Gadaffi to seek vengeance against the Western powers.
The greatest English monarch, Elizabeth I, commented “The stone often recoils on the head of the thrower.” Queen Elizabeth’s advice remains worth considering today.
6 comments:
James,much has been accomplished by Gaddafi these past three weeks. His forces no longer control just western Libya. He has effectively retaken most of the country save Benghazi. He saw his window of opportunity and he made the most of it.
Gaddafi has declared a ceasefire. Are we going to bomb his forces if the rebels decide to attack him? If so this has very little to do with a "no fly zone" and everything to do with the Crusaders again kicking hell out of the Muslim world.
The US should have given the Egyptian generals their marching orders three weeks ago. Egypt has a direct involvement. There are some cross-border tribes that live in western Egypt/eastern Libya that are exposed to Gaddafi's wrath. Egypt also has plenty of modern, US-built fighters and tanks that could have made short work of Gaddafi's antiquated crap. Too late now though.
While enforcing a no fly zone will kill some civilians, the fact it is very likely that more would have been killed if a no fly zone hadn't been enacted.
People keep comparing it to Afghanistan and Iraq, but a much better comparison is to Serbia where the goal was achieved without ground troops. In this case the goal may have been achieved without a single bomb (I know it is still early).
"He has effectively retaken most of the country save Benghazi."
In the desert capturing land doesn't mean much. By population, he hasn't captured that much.
"First, and this is purely Western self-interest, Gaddafi has changed since Lockerbie. "
Mr Morton, you're a lawyer.
Give me any evidence of this.
Nobody's hands are clean here.
Gadaffi made it very clear that the streets would run with blood, and then proceeded to use warplanes on his own people.
The western governments were happy to deal with him for years, provided he kept his terror within his own borders, left Israel alone, and kept up the flow of oil (that, so far as I can judge, is the position expressed in the present column, which is shameful).
Harper has jumped into a no-fly zone with both feet, eagerly committing warplanes not out of any sense of justice but solely in order to justify (and deflect attention from the cost of) his multi-billion dollar F-35 purchase.
As the Arab people were throwing off their own tyrants - and throwing a wrench into al Qaeda in the process - but are stymied only by both western indifference and western armaments. We have a responsibility - but who will take a stand rooted in courage, rather than self interest?
As for Gaddafi changing, I agreed he hasn't changed in his ruthlessness or approach -- my point is he is no longer (or was no longer)supporting international terrorism. But he remains a dangerous ruthless thug
"my point is he is no longer (or was no longer)supporting international terrorism."
Mr Morton, the judge is going to slap you down for wasting the courts time.
I ask again, where is the evidence that Mr Qaddafi has nothing to do with international terrorism?
I have yet to see any evidence of this anywhere, let alone on your blog.
Post a Comment