By Steve Hynd
Various news agencies are reporting that Britain, France and Italy are going to send military advisers to Libya, to help train the rag-tag rebel militias. The reporting agrees that the US, France and UK already have special forces on the ground to assess strike effectiveness and help with targeting. Oh, and the CIA is there too.
Yet at the same time we're being told by Sarkozy's cabinet, by the UK's Cameron and by President Obama that there will be no Western "boots on the ground" - in supposed agreement with the UNSC resolution.
Huh? What's the cut-on point, I wonder? How many pairs of boots before they count? A hundred, a thousand?
President Sarkozy of France is also promising to increase French ground attacks, under the NATO banner, to help the rebels make offensive gains. The British are sending the rebels body armor, something that's got some MP's up in arms because it was never debated by Parliament, and it's believed that French weaponry is being channeled to the rebels via Quatar.
Where are the efforts to create conditions for a ceasefire - the very letter of the UNSCR - rather than backing one side in a civil war?
Instead we have the French saying the UNSC should pass a new resolution allowing ground troops and an open policy of regime change after all. We've got the rebels calling for NATO ground troops. And we've got the European Union, "under strong pressure from the French", asking the UN to allow it to send a 1,000 strong military force into Misrata.
This is mission gallop, not just mission creep.
Update: It occurs to me that the massive, retributive, massacres of the civilian population we were told were a real and present danger requiring invocation of the UN's Right To Protect have utterly failed to happen when Gaddafi-loyal forces have re-taken rebel towns. No massacres in Zawiyah, Ras Lanuf or Brega. Civilian deaths are occuring in Misrata and elsewhere where rebel and loyalist forces are still fighting each other but levels are no-where near the massacre of innocent thousands we were told to expect.
So I suspect we were conned by Sarkozy and the rebels. If the West hadn't intervened, it seems possible that Gaddafi's forces would have won in fairly short order and things would have settled down again without a massive humanitarian crisis. Instead, by intervening on the rebel side, the West has perpetuated the conflict and caused more loss of life and more misery than there might otherwise have been. If so, then it might be that withdrawal now would likewise be the more humanitarian course - although of course that's not going to happen now that Western leaders are doubling down on regime change.
Update 2: Prof Alan Kuperman, author of books on the limits of humanitarian intervention, agrees with my argument above.
Several inaccuracies are in your article. First of all, Ras Lanuf and Brega - both small towns, were evacuated before getting retaken by Gaddafi's forces. 2nd, Zawiya is seeing a massacre - you just don't get to hear about it. No press to report it. And 3rd, you forgot to mention Tripoli itself, where the bulk of the killing by Gaddafi's forces is happening. Again, you don't hear about them much. Tens of thousands of disappearances so far in places where Gaddafi has suppressed demonstrations - and nobody hears from these people. Are they still alive in those detention centers? I would suggest you ask to inspect the detention centers, and ensure some of the people are still alive, before you write anymore about the lack of slaughter.
ReplyDeleteHi Lee,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any supporting evidence for your assertions? I'm not saying you're wrong, but our traffic stats tell me you aren't posting from Libya, rather from the US. How do you know?
Regards, Steve