But seriously... so... Libya.
A week ago I was arguing with others that whatever was or wasn't done in regards to Libya would have consequences. It was simply too flippant or naive to say there was a definitive answer to either option. Doing *something* clearly had consequences, but NOT doing something was equivalent to doing something - ie: inaction being an action itself (like standing by and watching a car-crash if you could stop it). To be fair, I thought there were some valid points on all sides. it had all the receipes of giant clusterfuck and, let's be honest, we've had quite enough of those in recent memory.
So these are my basic questions and I think they're the ones we need answers to as soon as possible...
1) Why are we there? Officially to prevent attacks against sections of the Libyan populace who were facing defeat at the hands of the governmental supporters. The UN resolution allows for a no-fly zone to prevent attacks by planes and also a clause that adds the prevention of activities likely to cause such death and destruction. However it seems that the 'necessary' missions to take out anti-aircraft gunsd etc as part of the 'no-fly' zone has been expanded to use missiles on other facilities.
2) Is the aim regime change? The official position says no, it's just to stop atrocities, though it seems to defy any element of common sense that you can attack one side's forces and still claim you aren't taking sides? Currently Cameron refuses to answer whether the anti-aggression rules apply to both sides and whether the rebels are effectively moving forward under Coalition protection.
3) Is Gaddafi a legitimate target? The official position says "absolutely not, the UN Resolution forbids it "(as per Head of Defence Gen, Sir David Richard's response when asked that). When the likes of PM David Cameron and Hague are asked they say they aren't deliberately targetting him but the UN Resolution wouldn't disallow it. Gaddafi's personal compound was hit last night and apparently again tonight.
4) Isn't this a moral imperative to stop ordinary people being killed? Arguably so, but it's clear it's gone from what was perceived as a popular uprising by the majority against the minority government, to something that is essentially a civil war in which Gaddafi's forces clearly had the upper hand until 48hrs ago. Cameron says it is not a civil war and say they are there to protect the rights of the average Libyan citizen against opression. No news so far whether any of the other countries in the area, also oppresisng their citizens and shooting them down in crowds are perceived as being worthy of a simialr response. Worth noting, of course, that until a few months ago, he was still considered a tyrant, but one we were actively trading arms with and so the righteous indignation etc is a whole new thing...
5) Why isn't the Middle East policing its own area? There has been a promise of co-operation from countries in the region and tactile approval for a no-fly zone, but within 24hrs of the bombing strarting, there were complaints that the US, UK etc had over-stepped the boundaries of the Resolution. While it's fair to say that the Resolution's remit seems to be widely open to interpreation, it also isn't possible to have a no-fly zone WITHOUT taking out some anti-aircraft. The coalition has refused to name specific Middle-East countries which may be helping more directly and it's also worth noting that some of the key Arab figures will be playing to their domestic audience as they look for votes in forth-coming elections.. and therefore will probably avoid any direct approval of any military action.
6) What's the exit strategy? It doesn't seem there is one. Several politicians are saying Gadaffi's postion is compeltely unviable, but if they won't call for his removal then legitimately everything could continue indefinitely, including ongoing civil warfare, a stand-off. Indeed, the only way the situation COULD improve is if one side triumphs definitively over the other. At this point the coalition seems to eb supporting the rebels... therefore....do the maths.
7) This is Obama's fault isn't it? Clearly so. He waited too long and then made America look weak by not being decisive or taking the international lead, nor acting aggressively enough and.... no wait, it's his fault because he's committed too much, taken too much of a lead and being too aggressive when he should have done nothing, wait... I....look, over there, isn't that David Cameron?
8) Most importantly, how do you spell Gaddafi? Sometimes with one D, with one F, possibly with a Q and a U depending what news service, channel or country you look at. It appears the name isn't important when you go to war.
9) Have we learned nothing? On the contrary, we've continued to refine the art of selling arms to keep the peace and arming one side and then the other depending on how long we can pinch our nose and which way the winds blow.
