Intervention in Libya - Saving lives makes move acceptable
A very good outcome would be an immediate end to the civil war, an end to Muammar Gaddafi’s four decades of dictatorship, his immediate exile followed by an early and robust hearing at the International Courts of Justice for the bizarre colonel and the henchmen who have sustained his regime.
If all of the countries involved in the conflict could immediately withdraw and leave the future of that divided country to the peaceful deliberations of people of Libya it might be seen as a considerable success.
If, as well as all of that, that country was set on the road to a secure and active democracy without further loss of life, or the subjugation of half the population in the name of religious observance, then it might just be possible to begin speaking of a victory.
Only time will tell which of these conclusions will be reached, but a few things are certain.
No country, least of all America, wants to be drawn into a long and bloody conflict that cannot be won. No country wants to exert influence on the internal affairs of Libya other than to ensure that the administration does not murder its citizens for no reason other than their determination to express their dissatisfaction with their leaders. There have been too many of those interventions and the relationship between the West and Islamic countries, already fraught enough, could hardly stand another disaster like Iraq.
Speaking earlier this week President Barack Obama recognised this difficulty, but he also recognised the obligations of those countries and coalitions capable of preventing massacre and genocide.
He reiterated that America’s role in the assault on Gaddafi’s forces would be limited, but said that America had the responsibility and the international backing to stop what he described as a looming genocide.
“I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action,” President Obama said, recognising the responsibilities that very often fall on America’s shoulders while remembering the dreadful consequences of belated intervention in the Balkans and Rwanda in recent decades.
He did accept though that using American troops to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power would be a step too far, and would “splinter” the international coalition challenging his government.
Compared to the assertions — later confirmed as lies — about weapons of mass destruction used by his predecessor George W Bush, and his enthusiastic ally Tony Blair, President Barack’s position seems measured, realistic and well-motivated, though protestors suppressed in Bahrain and Yemen might wonder why they did not benefit from such active protection.
Of course the spectre of oil and all of the other rotten, oppressive autocracies all around the world hangs over all of this, but without external forces constraining Gaddafi many hundreds, if not thousands, more Libyans might be murdered. If it is feasible to remove a tyrant and save thousands of lives then there needs to be very compelling reasons not to.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
