The object of the UN resolution regarding Libya was to prevent the loss of of civilian life, not to effect or support regime change. Sadly today Defence Secretary Liam Fox proved that he just might not have the nous or experience to be occupying the job.
The reason for this, in my view, is that the silly person responded to his interviewer (who must have been overjoyed at the easy prize afforded him) regarding Gaddafi being targeted:
"Well, that would potentially be a possibility but you mention immediately one of the problems we would have, which is that you would have to take into account any civilian casualties that might result from that."
The aim has to be to get a ceasefire in place and to have the two sides engage in dialogue. Killing Gaddafi would quickly see any support from Arab nations vanish and the people of Libya harden their stance against the Western aggressors and make Gaddafi's 'masters of colonial conquest' claims take on a reality that is at present unfounded!
The Command and Control, Communications and Intelligence part of the mission has gone well and resulted in a weakened air defence and command structure. The stopping tanks in their tracks (literally) has posted a warning note to those forces acting under Gaddafi's control that they should cease. That some forces are advancing and progressing is something that needs to be dealt with but caution is the key here.
It would be foolish to see the coalition forces become little more than air cover for the rebel forces and it would be wrong to arm or permit these forces from grouping and forming up to engage the government forces. What we need is to effect a ceasefire and to encourage both sides to engage in dialogue. And should there be, as part of the democratic will of the Libyan people, a change of leadership, then it should come from within and be free from manipulation and political/military subversion on the part of any alien government.
Foreign Secretary, William Hague, needs to be a little more circumspect as well! His ill-measured words this morning supported what Liam Fox has said and this is obviously not the aim of the Un resolution and solidifies the thinking that Gaddafi is, and perhaps will be, viewed as a legitimate target.
Look at the resolution chaps and bring about the outcomes dictated by it. Neither add nor fall short of the required outcomes and we will see this as a shining page on the part of the UN. Fail and we will see a hardening of the Arab/Western world divide.
And speaking of integrity and rules of engagement (RoE) - I see that British aircraft pulled off from a bombing mission because there were civilians present. This is the integrity that needs to be maintained and displayed.
Keep praying people
2 comments:
I actually thing that David Cameron and Co, were looking for the chance to demonstrate their war like tendencies, perhaps in TB style, but with a legal mandate from the UN and some support from the Arab League.
Credibility is a big issue for this government, which appears to be making a real 'dogs dinner' of the 'Big Society' being undermined by savage, indiscriminate cuts.
The actions taken so far, seem to exceed the mandate given by the UN, although I can see the attraction for Politicians to clear up a few odds and ends, such as the attack on the forces about to attack Benghazi.
As you say, the holding back by the RAF pilots in not attacking a target, where civilians were thought to be present demonstrates something of the ethics of the services, pity that the Politicians cannot exercise the same restraint, by putting their brains in gear, before engaging their mouths.
Off course, some of the very aircraft carrying out the british mission, are destined for cuts as part of the MOD budget deficit reduction. Will we see redundancy notices being served on pilots and aircrew as they return from their latest mission? Which would seem appropriate, given the experience of the soldiers recently sent them by email.
I should declare an interest, I don't particularly like this government.
I find the talk of the UN Resolution interesting as it is being portrayed as a 'Legal' mandate for action.
No one appointed the UN / NATO or even the good old US of A as a police force for the world. More importantly no one ever gave them any legal authority for acting in that role beyond that which they give them selves by doing it.
Don't get me wrong - I feel that intervention is necessary and am pleased to see it actually being carried out in a timely fashion.
However I just feel that claiming a legal power behind our actions is hypocritical. Essentially the UN (A group of nations with big sticks) has got together and agreed firstly that Libya (A smaller nation without a big stick) was doing something it didn't like. Later they agreed to do something about it (Using their big sticks).
That surely is what it boils down to? The international community disagrees with the actions being taken by the reigem and has decided to stop them - because it can.
And because it is right to do so.
Post a Comment