Is this a good idea the bombing of Libya?

Interfering in the political set up of another country by sending in missiles just doesn’t sound like a good idea. Especially the entire might of the West – USA, UK and France amongst others. It’s like taking a baseball bat to kill an ant. What else gets destroyed along the way? Half the furniture? Or in this case much more serious stuff such as civilian lives, infrastructure and an entire system.

Why does the West always think it has to met out such enormous punishment? And especially as this is a leader/dictator they kind of tolerated for years on end. What has changed so much that suddenly the military powers are getting involved.

In fact what happened to the no fly zone story? According to the New York Times: -American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war. Read the full article here.

What is with that?

It’s probably a few things such as it’s good PR to be seen to be doing something. It might just increase their popularity with the people of their countries. After all President Sarkozy who was the first to shoot, is hardly popular at home in France. Perhaps this flexing of small muscles in the little man might just turn the tide of public dislike.

Obama’s ratings are improving but the Republicans are still gaining. Perhaps he thinks by being the aggressor he will win back the vote of the folk who have migrated back into the Republican camp.

Cameron in the UK? He is trying to force through a bunch of very unkind new measures which will seriously and detrimentally affect the lives of his countrymen. Maybe he is trying to divert attention outside of the country while he messes up his homeland. And we are not even going to try to describe the dismal state of Merkel’s party in Germany.

Then there’s the impatience Europe might be having with the rioting happening across the pond called the Mediterranean. It’s been going on for too long. Too many people fleeing and crossing into Greece and Italy. They don’t know what to do with the thousands of refugees. Isn’t it easier to quickly sort out Libya so that this tide might be stemmed.

Maybe it’s also a matter of flexing the muscles and showing the East, those new brats on the block called India and China, that the power is still in the West. Of course this is an illusion. But then when have the Allied forces ever shown a semblance of clear thinking. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Rest your case on those two examples alone.

Whatever the reason for this attack that started even before the UN resolution had been passed, shades of Iraq again, it’s not a good one. Attacking a country with full force just because there are some internal political upheavals is not enough reason. After all there have been internal conflicts that have not brought about such fierce attack. For instance the Ivory Coast has been left to it’s devices while the leadership, what leadership, fights over the spoils.

Ah. But then the Ivory Coast doesn’t have the ninth largest oil reserves in the world. Almost forgot to mention that one.

3 thoughts on “Is this a good idea the bombing of Libya?

  1. First off, I don’t think you understand what a no-fly zone is. A no-fly zone is not aimed at all aircraft. It is to “prohibit military aircraft of a belligerent nation from operating in the region.” For example, after Saddam launched chemical attacks in northern Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of people, a no-fly zone was declared saying that any Iraqi military planes in the north would be shot down. Qaddafi’s military is bombing civilians. Shooting down aircraft in a no-fly zone is the whole point of a no-fly zone.

    Secondly, what are the alternatives? 20 years ago when the Shi’a and Kurds tried to rise up against Saddam, the US **didn’t** back them up. We supported what they were doing but when they actually took action, we just stood by and watched. As a consequence of the international community NOT helping them, tens of thousands of civilians were murdered by Saddam. Millions became refugees. The United States has been criticized for this ever since. We let those civilians be murdered. We could have helped them, we could have supported the uprising, we could have bombed the crap out of Saddam’s death squads to stop them from murdering all those innocent people. But we didn’t. It wasn’t our fight, we didn’t want to get involved, and we let them all die. In Libya, I think we’re doing now what we should have done during the Shi’a/Kurdish uprisings: support them with the military power that they lack.

    I am against pre-emptive attacks. I was against the way we handled Afghanistan. However, when the will of the people is to oust a dictator, and that dictator starts BOMBING his own people to quiet them, we can’t just sit by and watch. Sanctions sound like the “peaceful” way to pressure a country into compliance, but just like in Iraq during the 90’s and the Gaza Strip today, sanctions will only starve the population to death. The dictators will be the only ones who don’t suffer.

    I can’t speak about the oil motives, but are we wrong for intervening in Libya, or are we wrong for NOT intervening in Côte d’Ivoire as well? I fully agree it is hypocritical, but what are you offering as a solution? If the West lets Qaddafi win, Noam Chomsky will write books about how the US let him murder civilians. If the West takes down his government and supports the rebels, the new rebel-backed leader will become a dictator himself and Noam Chomsky will call the US’s actions “imperialistic”. I love Chomsky but in all honesty, is there really any solution here that doesn’t make the West look evil? We’re supporting dictators if we do nothing, and we’re imperialists if we get involved.

    We cheered as Tunisia succeeded in the jasmine revolution, we held fast in solidarity with the Egyptians as they so bravely showed that peaceful protest can and still does work. But peaceful protest can only work if the dictatorial government CARES about world opinion. Qaddafi doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, and he will murder as many people as it takes to shut up the rebels and beat them into submission. Unless you have a better suggestion for how the rebels can oust Qaddafi on their own, I don’t see how there is any other option but a) use our military strength to support the rebels or b) let Qaddafi crush them.

  2. I am a citizen of one of the new BRAT countries. First of all I congratulate u for the unbiased article. Its fit to be posted on a broader medium.

    I read some where that the things which are easier to see are easier to miss.

    So the simple observation that we all tend to miss is that the ENERGY CARTELS…. The WEST (good old brats) and the Middle EAST (SPOILED rich brats) have been messing up and manipulating all along.. Libya is just another offshoot of the process.

    Which is why new BRATS are needed. We need another brat in Japan .. Its been quiet for too long… The OLD brats have to be counterbalanced.

    Alternative energy must get proper attention… 5-10 years of proper investment is all is required to completely develop and commercialize..

    Then the OIL WOES will end. The ARABIAN headache since the Biblical times will cease..

  3. @devil’s advocate
    thanks for your great comment. And I do get the no-fly zone. I was just wondering why we were bombing ground targets. And I am just as confused about the whole thing. I hate people being treated as pawns by dictators and that they have no civil rights and are constantly threatened by the regime never mind the mindless killings and tortures often on innocent people.

    At the same time military intervention hardly ever seems to work. And a lot of damage is done to innocent bystanders. Sanctions don’t work either. I wish there was a middle way. And yes I certainly don’t have the answers either.

Comments are closed.