Poll: DELETED_74993

Were we right to get involved in Libya?

  • Yes

    Votes: 306 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 295 49.1%
  • Total voters
    601
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wall of text but quite an interesting read in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...bya/8397636/Why-Colonel-Gaddafi-must-go.html#

I must say this paper has had some of the best coverage during the last 3 days.

Why Colonel Gaddafi must go
Helping Libya transition to democracy is as much in Britain’s interests as it is the Libyan people’s. This future has no place in it for Colonel Gaddafi, writes George Grant.

On 17th March 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973, authorising the international community to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilian areas from assault by Libyan forces, while “excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

On a number of levels, this resolution is historic, but perhaps the most important is the fact that it has, for the first time, given concrete expression to the UN-recognised doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Belatedly endorsed by the UN in 2006 as a response to the Rwandan Genocide, R2P holds that international intervention in the affairs of sovereign states is permissible if their rulers prove unable or unwilling to prevent humanitarian atrocities, or are complicit in causing them.

In the modern world, where the vast majority of conflict takes place not between states, but within them, and in which as many as 90 per cent of casualties are civilian, this represents an important shift away from an excessive reliance on historical, Westphalian notions of state sovereignty as an excuse to stand back whilst dictators massacre their people.

For this reason, the authors of UNSCR 1973, which included not just Britain and France, but also Lebanon, should be proud. That being said, however, for this action to be truly effective it will be necessary to help the Libyan people establish not just a temporary peace, but also one that can endure. The wave of pro-democracy protest that has crashed across the Arab world over the past few months has made clear that the strategy of maintaining 'stable dictatorships' in the region was deeply misguided. In the long-term, these grubby kleptocrats can no more safeguard Western interests than they can those of their own people. The only stable future for Libya, therefore, is democratic.

Unfortunately, to view the situation through this prism is to quickly arrive at the most glaring omission of UNSCR 1973: that it makes absolutely no mention of the need for Colonel Gaddafi to relinquish power. In fact, in neither its preambulatory nor its operative clauses does UNSCR 1973 make any mention of Colonel Gaddafi at all. This is problematic.

In the short term, it would surely be quite wrong, and possibly dangerous, to raise the hopes of the Libyan people for a democratic Libya before abandoning them with Gaddafi still at the helm, albeit with his finger taken off the trigger. For immediate economic reasons also, such an outcome hardly appeals. The cost of enforcing a no-fly zone for what could be years should be enough to make any Western politician think twice in the current economic climate, especially when considering the fact that Colonel Gaddafi is hardly likely to want to sell his oil to Britain and France after all this.

This pales, however, when considered against the long-term strategic cost of permitting Gaddafi to remain in power. Allowing an embittered, impoverished and internationally isolated rogue state to fester on Europe’s southern periphery would be dangerous for all of the obvious, practical reasons that need no elaboration here. More than that, however, such a course would threaten the democratic momentum of the Arab Spring and help to bolster the resolve of still-extant dictatorships, including Iran.

Britain and its allies must recognise that in the long-term, the best strategic partners are not dictatorships, however cowed, but democracies. Democracies are generally more stable, more prosperous and more reliable than dictatorships. Britain’s own success over its continental European rivals in the 18th and 19th centuries can in large part be attributed to the greater political and economic liberties that it afforded to its citizens. Likewise, the reason why the United States of America prospered during this period whilst the states of Latin America largely foundered has an awful lot to do with the former’s superior mode of government, and very little to do with the fact that the latter spoke Spanish.

Today, 18 of the world’s 20 most prosperous countries are democracies (the arguable exceptions being Singapore and Hong Kong), as are 19 of the world’s 20 most peaceful states, with the exception, for now, being Qatar. As important is the fact that, to somewhat modify Immanuel Kant’s theory of Perpetual Peace, democracies do not seem to go to war with one another. In today’s highly-interconnected and globalised economy, stable and reliable partners are essential to maintaining the trade flows upon which Britain depends for its survival, while simultaneously reducing the economic and increasingly social burden of foreign development assistance, and absorbing refugees and asylum seekers from oppressive or conflict-ridden states.

Clearly, as Prime Minister David Cameron has repeatedly asserted, Libya’s future is ultimately a matter for the Libyan people. But we must not forget that since 15th February 2011 the Libyan people have been making it very clear that they do not wish for any political future that includes Colonel Gaddafi. It was Gaddafi’s decision to respond to that aspiration with murderous force that has led to the current intervention by the international community. While the UN Security Council was probably correct not to authorise the insertion of ground forces into Libya, particularly given the obligations imposed by NATO’s ongoing mission in Afghanistan as well as the still-toxic legacy of Iraq, Western leaders must do all else in their power to ensure that Libya’s future is not one that includes Gaddafi.

Most important in that regard will be the need to utterly isolate this embattled Libyan sexagenarian, not just internationally, but internally. In addition to economic sanctions and travel bans, Britain and its allies must be resolute in their assertions that any member of the Gaddafi regime or its armed forces found guilty of targeting civilians will face criminal prosecution. No economic or political dealings must be had with Libyan authorities whatsoever for as long as Colonel Gaddafi remains in place.

Conversely, we must make it clear to those still loyal to Gaddafi that they too have an important place in a post-Gaddafi Libya. It must be recognised that, as in almost all dictatorships, complicity is usually a symptom of fear and coercion rather than genuine sympathy for the leadership and its objectives. If the instruments of power upon which a dictator depends for his survival can be persuaded to abandon him, then his downfall is almost guaranteed.

Clearly, the removal of Gaddafi alone will not be enough to bring about a democratic Libya. The West must remember the lessons so painfully learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, that regime change is only the first step. Beyond that, Libya must immediately and wholeheartedly be assisted to develop all those pillars of civil infrastructure, such as a free press, an independent judiciary, and a professional civil service, that are necessary for a democracy to endure. Helping Libya to transition in this manner will be vital to capitalise on the high hopes and goodwill of the Libyan people, and in so doing to avoid the descent into chaos that cursed both Iraq and Afghanistan to a much more protracted period of conflict than might otherwise have been the case.

None of this can happen, however, so long as Gaddafi himself remains in power. We must hope that with the intervention authorised by UNSCR 1973, the military as well as the psychological momentum will swing back to the rebel forces to an extent sufficient to force Gaddafi from power, but we must do all we can to assist them in that endeavour. We owe it not just to the Libyan people, but also to ourselves, to ensure that any Libya beyond this current intervention is not one that includes Colonel Gaddafi
Click to expand...
 
Robboftw said:
Exactly! :D

Does Libya have an opposition leader who could take charge if we take down him and his government completely?

Or would we have to do the whole Iraq rebuild again?
Click to expand...

There is no one opposition leader, that is the problem. There are a number of factions.

The only way Gadaffi is going to go is if someone puts the knife in him or the military force him to go.

"We have to rebuild"
Click to expand...

That would take a ground force invasion first to get rid of him and that will not happen.

Even at the start of Iraq it was acknowledged that air attacks would not force Saddam from power.

The west is going to be made to look foolish over this as he will still be in power and will probably now treat the rebels with no sympathy.
 
Robboftw said:
Exactly! :D

Does Libya have an opposition leader who could take charge if we take down him and his government completely?

Or would we have to do the whole Iraq rebuild again?
Click to expand...

As said above really, i'm not sure on the Rebel structure or how things work in that respect, i haven't read up much about them.

simulatorman said:
The other one can be considered to be "safe".
Click to expand...

He seems to be in good hands, costal pickup for him at a guess.
 
Firestar_3x said:
As said above really, i'm not sure on the Rebel structure or how things work in that respect, i haven't read up much about them.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe he needs to be removed regardless and then everyone can just help the rebels in the cheapest way possible (:p) to sort everything out.
 
One Libyan who came across the crashed jet told Britain's Daily Telegraph that one pilot held his hands in the air and said "OK, OK", but was quickly thanked by locals for his participation in the air strikes.


Younis Amruni told the Telegraph: "I hugged him and said 'don't be scared, we are your friends'."

Awesome :D
 
Robboftw said:
Well, I believe he needs to be removed regardless and then everyone can just help the rebels in the cheapest way possible (:p) to sort everything out.
Click to expand...

I've just been having a look on-line and read a single liner which slipped my attention this morning.

Gaddafi's HQ, which i presume is the one we hit the other night and flattened a command and control centre has been attacked again, i presume this happened during last night raids, interesting to see if this is a direct attack to kill Gaddafi or if it's something else.

Anyone else got any info on the second HQ attack?
 
OldCoals said:
To be fair, if you listen to Cameron, Hague, Fox and General Richards it is a farce, is Gaddafi a target or not, they all say different things.
Click to expand...

Basically he is but they won't admit to it, they're supposed to be protecting civilians afterall and not performing a coup...
 
What if the new political structure in Libya, should there be one, doesn't align with western policy?

Will we stand back and really let the Libyan people choose their own future?
 
From a simplistic point of view: if all goes well its going to be a democracy so by definition it should align in a way that any differences can be talked out.
 
This thread is hilarious.

It has the same few posters circulating in it, who are only saying good things about the west's military action, and if anyone comes in and says anything negative about it, they snap like a bunch of rabid dogs at him.

Equally hilarious is the entire farce surrounding military action in Libya. What happened? People rioted, during a time where people were protesting against their governments all over the middle east, the British and French governments decided to interfere and take Libya while it was weak, after all, Libya has oil.

"But what excuse can we use to go in there and get all that delicious oil?" They thought. "Hmm, I know!" said one spin doctor to another. "We'll make out that Gadaffi is a really bad man, and we're doing all this to 'free the people' lol." Newspaper and TV headlines are carefully chosen to make Gadaffi the new "evil one" like Saddam, Osama, and so many before them.

The Americans join in with the military action for a few days like it's a game, before leaving again, probably for their share of oil. The US gets a share of all oil "liberated" from "evil countries", they're like the leaders of an international cabal, and must be paid tribute lest they get stroppy.

The excuses that have been used to justify the murder of innocent civillians, along with the cover-ups of said murder, is honestly quite disgusting and anyone who supports our military action in Libya is supporting murder in-kind. Our military is there for one reason, and one reason alone, oil. Believing anything else is deluding yourself.
 
Pixel said:
This thread is hilarious.

It has the same few posters circulating in it, who are only saying good things about the west's military action, and if anyone comes in and says anything negative about it, they snap like a bunch of rabid dogs at him.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry for keeping the thread updated with the latest news, i'm going to change the pace of the thread for you; buy not replying to your comments.

Works for me.
 
Last edited:
Pixel said:
This thread is

SNIP...
Click to expand...

Excellent post, well thought out, fairly good grammar and structure.

Ultimately fails though on one of the major points - it isn't about the oil.

F minus - must try harder.

Believing anything else is deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

Believing it's just about the oil is the delusion.

I'm not for one moment naieve enough to think it's just about the humanitarian issue, but it's equally naieve, nay, "tin foil hat brigade"'ish to think it's JUST about the oil.

The UN resolution and subsequent action in Lybia is a result of a melting pot of many complex issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pixel said:
This thread is hilarious.

It has the same few posters circulating in it, who are only saying good things about the west's military action, and if anyone comes in and says anything negative about it, they snap like a bunch of rabid dogs at him.

Equally hilarious is the entire farce surrounding military action in Libya. What happened? People rioted, during a time where people were protesting against their governments all over the middle east, the British and French governments decided to interfere and take Libya while it was weak, after all, Libya has oil.

"But what excuse can we use to go in there and get all that delicious oil?" They thought. "Hmm, I know!" said one spin doctor to another. "We'll make out that Gadaffi is a really bad man, and we're doing all this to 'free the people' lol." Newspaper and TV headlines are carefully chosen to make Gadaffi the new "evil one" like Saddam, Osama, and so many before them.

The Americans join in with the military action for a few days like it's a game, before leaving again, probably for their share of oil. The US gets a share of all oil "liberated" from "evil countries", they're like the leaders of an international cabal, and must be paid tribute lest they get stroppy.

The excuses that have been used to justify the murder of innocent civillians, along with the cover-ups of said murder, is honestly quite disgusting and anyone who supports our military action in Libya is supporting murder in-kind. Our military is there for one reason, and one reason alone, oil. Believing anything else is deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

Outstanding, you just summed up why im glad i live here not there :)
 
chosen to make Gadaffi the new "evil one" like Saddam, Osama,
Click to expand...

I've just notied that in your post. I think Gaddaffi has managed to attain the "evil" monicker without much assistance from us!

Are you saying that Saddam and Osama are (or were) actually good and decent people?

Accusing other people of being dellusional - "those in glass house shouldn't throw stones".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom