Canadian involvement in the war in Libya has been extended.
Why?
What is Canada's strategic (or even tactical) reason to be in Libya? How does bombing one side in a local civil war make sense?
One can only hope that (1) the rebels win, (2) Libya remains united, (3) the rebels are liberal democrats who will respect human rights better than what came before and (4) that the rebels will remember their 'friends'.
Anyone taking bets on those 4 hopes?
"We're all cornered
Winnipeg Free Press
Whatever authority the authors of the United Nations resolution to legitimize limited military intervention in Libya may have intended to extend, the resolution now appears to have taken on a life of its own.
The war in Libya today has gone beyond what the sponsors and supporters of the UN resolution had envisioned. Indeed, no one envisioned a "war" in Libya at all, proposing instead the imposition of a "no-fly-zone" over the strife-torn country to protect civilian lives from the atrocities being committed by the armed forces of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. It should have been a piece of cake for a mighty military alliance like NATO opposing a tin-pot tyrant like Col. Gadhafi.
Last week, however, the Canadian Parliament had to approve the extension of that mission by another three months, committing Canadian forces to something that has become quite different from what it was originally advertised as being. Despite the denials that almost everyone in charge will issue, the mission now is clearly to topple Col. Gadhafi and replace him with a new government comprised of rebel forces. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said as much when he went to Libya and diplomatically embraced the rebel government-in-waiting."
4 comments:
This Libyan adventure is just bad policy and a direct consequence of Paul Martin's "responsibility to protect". We cannot protect everyone, everywhere. We certainly don't seem to be interested in protecting Syrians, nor Coptic Christians in Egypt.
As for the 4, I think the least likely is that these rebels will be liberal democrats. I would be just fine if Libya split in two, or even more, if the result was stable tribal-led mini-states. Or maybe we just encourage Egypt to expand a little to the West.
I think that when Gadhafi brought in his mercenaries and said the streets will run with the protesters' blood the die was pretty much cast.
We could just stand by an watch hkim ruthlessly exterminate the bulk of his people (most of whom are just excess baggage to him anyway). After all, we do not serve any Canadian interest by intervening.
But I'm not sure we would feel very good if tens of thousands of people were slaughtered and we stood by watching. I'm sure I wouldn't.
I noticed royal engagement was announced a few days before nato-summit last year. On royal wedding weekend, gad-dafi's family was bombed and osama-bin-laden was allegedly "dealt with".
http://tinyurl.com/3k69hrf
Downes, how do you feel about all the dead in Syria? Or 300,000 refugees in Northern Kenya? Take your pick, people die every day and we cannot save them all. Choosing to intervene in Libya was a bad choice exactly because there were no Canadian interests at stake. In a world with limited resources Canada should intervene when it is BOTH humanitarian AND in Canada's interest. Haiti comes to mind...
Post a Comment