Enough slacking. I am going to blog every from now until my birthday. Here goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Libya.
I'm all for the rebels trying to oust Gadaffi. But the US, UN, Europe et al getting involved is a terrible idea that is, in so many ways, another Iraq.
Firstly, it's not going to help anything.
Obama and Cameron say they want to stop Gadaffi bombing the rebels or attacking them with chemical weapons. They allegedly want to protect the people of Libya, so they are going to shoot down his planes and bomb his strongholds. Sounds like a good idea at first, but it's complete nonsense.
Attacking Gadaffi's cities will lead to Lybian deaths. Gadaffi's inevitable counter-attack will lead to more Libyan deaths. They may well stop the battle reaching the cities held by the rebel, but they're not going to stop the battle happening. They're just going to move the fighting to a different part of Libya. Either way, innocent civilians die from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So where's the advantage?
Secondly, as harsh as this may seem, this is kind of how civil wars work.
Rebels attempt to overthrow their government, government retaliates, fighting ensues, the strongest side gets to run the country. It's happening in various non-Libya places around the world as we speak. It just seems so illogical to get stuck in with the rebels in this war when we aren't bothering/haven't bothered with all the others. If we support a particular side, we can provide resources etc., rather than sending over troops and making the fighting worse.
Thirdly, you cannot justify this on a humanitarian basis, which is what the NAmerican/European leaders are trying to do.
A similar argument to the first, but to genuinely help the civilians of Libya, one would organise evacuations (which, in fairness, has been happening) and provide aid. Introduce more belligerents to a war, and you cause more fighting, and more deaths. You can only justify the attack on Libya from a political point of view, so Western leaders are misinforming us when they try to say "we're doing it for the innocent civilians!".
Fourthly, this will be damaging to the rebels in the long term.
The US and it's merry band of allies invaded Iraq in 2003, and they're still paritally in occupation. When the rebels began their fight against Gadaffi, their aim was not US occupation for eight-plus years. Let them win the fight on their own, and they can form (or at least attempt to form) a government by the Libyan people, for the Libyan people. But now that's not going to happen.
Fifthly, it's all about the oil.
I mean, seriously. Obama et al have let however-many civil wars pass them by with never anything more than a speech on how lovely it is that democracy is spreading. Now for the first time since 2003 they've leapt in with guns blazing (literally), and the country fighting over itself just happens to be very rich in the black stuff? It's all fairly obvious.
Oh well. Maybe the war will be won in a matter of days, saving thousands of lives, control being handed over to the Libyans immediately afterwards, and I'll be thrilled to have been proven wrong. But it's not looking very likely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Libya.
I'm all for the rebels trying to oust Gadaffi. But the US, UN, Europe et al getting involved is a terrible idea that is, in so many ways, another Iraq.
Firstly, it's not going to help anything.
Obama and Cameron say they want to stop Gadaffi bombing the rebels or attacking them with chemical weapons. They allegedly want to protect the people of Libya, so they are going to shoot down his planes and bomb his strongholds. Sounds like a good idea at first, but it's complete nonsense.
Attacking Gadaffi's cities will lead to Lybian deaths. Gadaffi's inevitable counter-attack will lead to more Libyan deaths. They may well stop the battle reaching the cities held by the rebel, but they're not going to stop the battle happening. They're just going to move the fighting to a different part of Libya. Either way, innocent civilians die from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So where's the advantage?
Secondly, as harsh as this may seem, this is kind of how civil wars work.
Rebels attempt to overthrow their government, government retaliates, fighting ensues, the strongest side gets to run the country. It's happening in various non-Libya places around the world as we speak. It just seems so illogical to get stuck in with the rebels in this war when we aren't bothering/haven't bothered with all the others. If we support a particular side, we can provide resources etc., rather than sending over troops and making the fighting worse.
Thirdly, you cannot justify this on a humanitarian basis, which is what the NAmerican/European leaders are trying to do.
A similar argument to the first, but to genuinely help the civilians of Libya, one would organise evacuations (which, in fairness, has been happening) and provide aid. Introduce more belligerents to a war, and you cause more fighting, and more deaths. You can only justify the attack on Libya from a political point of view, so Western leaders are misinforming us when they try to say "we're doing it for the innocent civilians!".
Fourthly, this will be damaging to the rebels in the long term.
The US and it's merry band of allies invaded Iraq in 2003, and they're still paritally in occupation. When the rebels began their fight against Gadaffi, their aim was not US occupation for eight-plus years. Let them win the fight on their own, and they can form (or at least attempt to form) a government by the Libyan people, for the Libyan people. But now that's not going to happen.
Fifthly, it's all about the oil.
I mean, seriously. Obama et al have let however-many civil wars pass them by with never anything more than a speech on how lovely it is that democracy is spreading. Now for the first time since 2003 they've leapt in with guns blazing (literally), and the country fighting over itself just happens to be very rich in the black stuff? It's all fairly obvious.
Oh well. Maybe the war will be won in a matter of days, saving thousands of lives, control being handed over to the Libyans immediately afterwards, and I'll be thrilled to have been proven wrong. But it's not looking very likely.
No comments:
Post a Comment