War in Libya

The United Nations has late in the day decided to stand up to the Libyan dictator. Their task would have been easier if they had acted when David Cameron first raised the issue.

Under the remit the coalition of the willing that forms to carry out the task could keep Libya’s jets from bombing their own country. They could also damage his army when on the move across open country by air to ground bombing. It might well be possible to stop his further ruthless progress. If they could use this power to force negotiations that might help. Without troops on the ground they cannot easily reverse the regimes gains to date.

I wish them well. I want to see Arab countries with perhaps the assistance of France and Italy undertake this task. They are the  neighbours  with the planes to do the job and the airfields nearby.

50 Comments

  1. Alex Bellars
    March 18, 2011

    Since when does being a “geographical neighbour” prevent us getting involved? We have a humanitarian duty to reverse the wrongs done with the ÂŁ40 million worth of arms and “crowd control” resources sold to Gaddafi to keep him sweet over the last few decades…

    1. Stuart Fairney
      March 18, 2011

      Volunteering for the fight? Or wanting to send others?

      I suspect the latter.

      1. Winston Smith
        March 18, 2011

        Yes, and he no doubt voted for the man who instigated the arms deals.

  2. lifelogic
    March 18, 2011

    “I want to see Arab countries with perhaps the assistance of France and Italy undertake this task. They are the neighbours with the planes to do the job and the airfields nearby.”

    Absolutely – anyway does the UK still have any planes, pilots or money left?

    1. lifelogic
      March 18, 2011

      Good news but only the third bit since the election I think. (After the abolition in part of HIPs and the M4 bus lane) it now seems we might finally be able to stop squatters stealing our houses while we are out and then getting protection from the law and the police to stay put. The owner having to pay courts and lawyers and wait months to finally get them out often after they have burnt all furniture and woodwork to keep warm.

      BBC is always running stories on how nice the squatters really are, how they maintain and look after the squats and how anyone who has an empty property perhaps while they are in hospital or working away or something is pure evil.

      Might be good to have a working court system of collecting debt and rent arrears too.

      1. lifelogic
        March 18, 2011

        Alas this good new is still far out done by the bad measures such as not being able to retire people, the daft energy policy, insurance equality nonsense, Irish bail out and countless others.

      2. Bazman
        March 18, 2011

        You and Gaddafi might be not that far apart as squatters have taken over a house thought to belong to Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son of the Libyan dictator. Maybe we could use some of the parts of the political system in Gaddafi’s regime. That posh uppity student Tarqin and his lame mates would have certainly though twice about protesting knowing they could be mown down with heavy automatic weaponry at any time and the trains might even run on time. No wonder he has so many supporters. What a card..

    2. Geoff not Hoon
      March 18, 2011

      LL, Q in last line. Answer NO but we can go on borrorwing just like before. Remember we are still a great ‘power’ so have to act like one.

  3. Tina Louise
    March 18, 2011

    Sadly our loss of any credibility after Iraq and Afghanistan makes what should be the right thing to do – look sinister and worrying. It seems right to encourage countries other than US/UK to work to keep the Libyans safe as our record is awful.

    The next problem comes when we face the hypocricy of this – we are clearly highly selective when choosing who we help (people suffering under Mugabe must be wondering why they have not been worthy).

    Worrying times.

    1. Iain Crew
      March 18, 2011

      Perhaps if Zimbabwe had any oil the world might have treated Mugabe with the same righteous indignation as the Nation States seek to treat Gadaffi?

      No oil, no “all necessary means” to protect civilians it would seem!

  4. Akvavitix
    March 18, 2011

    We all know this has got nothing to do with the poor civilians in Libya or this government would be intervening in all the other trouble spots in the world. This has to do with one thing only, that being that while the Mad Colonel is in poower then BP will not ever see a red cent for its investment so far in Libya thanks in no small part because our incompetent FCO came out very early on flag waving for the rebels instead of keeping stum and sitting on the siidelines.

    So, BP about to lose investment, cue Polticians ready and willing to waste men’s lives in pursuit of nothing. When and if you do manage to turn the tide for the rebels, I wonder what you are going to write about when the new regime does like they did in Iraq and everywhere else the bliterhing British go, stick two fingers up at you and embrace extremism and fundamentalism while pimping themselves to the Russians or the Chinese.

    The Britissh Politician really has a very elevated opinion of their importance.

    1. alexmews
      March 19, 2011

      there may be somehting in this – there is no doubt oil is playing a part. but clearly this action is been led by France, Mr Sarko in particular, with back seat but obvious support from USA. Seems to me Dave has got bounced into it in order not to be second fiddle to France.

  5. Javelin
    March 18, 2011

    I hope this operation will succeed without ground troops. If it does succeed it should help to put Iraq behind us, by offering a feasible model of intervention.

  6. Stuart Fairney
    March 18, 2011

    Tough for the Arabs to do it. Egypt is in no fit state at present and the nearest modern air force (discounting Israel) is Saudi Arabia which is many hundred of miles away. Setting aside the need to cross Egyptian air space, it’s tough to run standing patrols from such a distance or intercept Libyan jets. Ground attack maybe possible but I can’t really see the Saudis encouraging one set of rebels while supressing another.

    I discount the Italians and French.

    We should not be involved whatsoever. Setting aside the fact we have not the money for another jaunt, if I may misquote Bismark “Libya is not worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier” Those who think otherwise are invited to hop a flight to Egypt and join the rebels ~ or perhaps they just prefer to send others to die in a cause they deem noble.

    There is no British interest here. Leave well alone and deal with whoever emerges victorious from the civil war which, if we mind our business, will be the Colonel.

  7. alan jutson
    March 18, 2011

    Any action should be led by Arab Countries.

    For too many times this country and the US, have taken the initiative in trying to police the world, for too many times we have both been slapped in the face.

    Do we really know who exactly is behind this push for freedom and democracy ?

    Interesting to note in the Telegraph today, it is reported that Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil abstained from voting for the UN motion.

    Russia and China are world powers with huge military strength, and a growing industrial and commercial base.

    Germany, India, and Brazil are world powers with a growing export market.

    Food for thought !

  8. A.Sedgwick
    March 18, 2011

    Hopefully this crisis will make Cameron see the total wrongheadedness of his Defence Review.

  9. Euan
    March 18, 2011

    So once again our government involves us in a war that is nothing to do with us and we do not know anything about in reality. By the logic Cameron uses we should also be preparing to attack Bahrain and many other countries that don’t make the headlines. I’m sure there are many civil wars that we could take sides in, maybe stir up even more trouble so that our politicians can posture on television. For all the press hype what has actually happened is we have declared war on a sovereign country that has not threatened us in any way.

    1. Iain Crew
      March 18, 2011

      Bahrain has no oil AND is in SaudiArabia’s back yard so I would be shocked, stunned and not a little amazed to see any UN righteous indignation any time soon!

    2. Bryan
      March 18, 2011

      Euan, not threatened us in any way?

      You must be too young to remember British troops and civilians being bombed and shot by the IRA, supplied and trained by Gadaffi. You don’t remember WPC Yvonne Fletcher, or maybe you have never heard of Lockerbie.

      1. Winston Smith
        March 18, 2011

        If the Libyan revolt had not become a cause celebre for the media/political class, Cameron would be continuing Blair’s schmoozing of Gaddaffi or ‘bringing hime into the International community’. The hypocrisy is blatant.

        1. zorro
          March 18, 2011

          Six weeks ago, we were happily investing and looking to invest money in a relatively prosperous Libya. British companies were looking to expand their operations and we had some joint cooperation on the control of illegal immigrants coming from Africa to Europe….

          Now, after some form of ‘popular’ or ‘democratic’ (forgive my cynicism) uprising, we have screwed up any further opportunities there so I guess that is why David Blair has decided that he must cut his losses and get rid of Gaddafi by hook or by crook…

          Can someone please tell me what actual threat Gaddafi was to the UK six weeks ago?…..and what potential threat to the UK streets could he be now after this declaration of intent?

          So, why did this happen? Cui bono? Surely not the USA to spite the UK after the Megrahi incident, and spoil any deals we have there. Let us see what happens after this is resolved with a ‘democratic’ Libya. Let’s see who gets the contracts then….I seem to recall that we thought that we would have some influence on Iraq after spilling our blood there. If I’m not mistaken, it’s the USA which seems to have taken advantage of the commercial opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan…..Funny that isn’t it?

          zorro

  10. Andrew Johnson
    March 18, 2011

    We should not be involved in any military action in Libya. Why is it a British responsibility to protect the citizens of Libya from the consequences of civil war, internal unrest and oppressive government?

  11. Michael Read
    March 18, 2011

    John. You’ve rewritten Henry V.

    “Into the breach, dear friends … errh, I wish you well with your endeavours, God’s speed and all that, but the PSBR is such that we have no treasure left for such idealistic adventures”.

    Churchillian, it isn’t. But perhaps jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

  12. Akvavitix
    March 18, 2011

    When are we invading Burma?

    1. Iain Crew
      March 18, 2011

      Must be soon as Burma does have Black Gold!

    2. Winston Smith
      March 18, 2011

      Tibet?

  13. Electro-Kevin
    March 18, 2011

    I recall Mr Cameron intimating that a no fly zone would be imposed by the British unilaterally.

    That would not have been good and I doubt the lack of credibility Britain has since Iraq helped to influence the UN decision.

    Off topic entirely but relevent to our energy debate (at least as important to national security.)

    The Fukushima nuclear plant, 41 years old, survived a scale 9 earthquake, a twenty foot tsunami, it’s been blown apart by gas explosions and yet its core remains intact … so far.

    We British would not have built our reactors along a geological fault line. Nor could we realistically expect them to be subjected to anything like the simultaneous stresses of the Japanese plants. Not even a nuclear terrorist act – by which time the nuclear problem would be out of control anyway – could do so much damage.

    Are the warmists seriously saying to us that nuclear power is unsafe ?

  14. acorn
    March 18, 2011

    It’s a funny old world, ain’t it?

    “Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler and top trade partner, has been cautious during the uprising in Libya but has said it will allow its air bases to be used to enforce a no-fly zone if such a decision was approved at the UN.

    TM News agency said the bases of Trapani Birgi in Sicily and Gioia del Colle in the southern region of Apulia could be made available for the operation.

    Italy and Libya are bound by a friendship treaty signed in 2008 that officially forbids the use of air bases in Italy to bomb Libya but Frattini [Italy Foreign Minister] earlier declared the document was “de facto suspended.”

    The use of air bases in Italy and of Italian air space is seen as crucial for the enforcement of any no-fly zone over Libya because of its location.” (Times Malta)

    1. Stuart Fairney
      March 19, 2011

      I unilaterally declare the tax code de facto suspended….

  15. Cliff.
    March 18, 2011

    John,

    I have just heard on Sky News that Mr Cameron has stated that he is to send British Tornadoes to Libya. Has this been put to Parliament or is it just another unilateral decision by another egotistical PM to drag our nation into another war that has nothing to do with us and we cannot afford?

    Will Mr Cameron issue the pilots with their redundancy notices before or after they start their mission?

    Can I assume the “coalition of the willing” will be attacking Mugabee next or is it less about protecting Libyans and everything to do with oil?

    This decision by Mr Cameron will harm our party no end and this, combined with all the other crazy policies we are following under Mr Cameron could well leave us unelectable for decades.

    1. zorro
      March 18, 2011

      He will probably issue the redundancy notices after they have started the mission, then he will get ‘more for less’…..

      zorro

    2. StevenL
      March 19, 2011

      What makes you think Zimbabweans want us to bomb them? A lot of them dislike Mugabe, but it’s a long stretch of the imagination to extend that sentiment to ‘we want the British to attack us with high explosives’.

      Try asking some Zimbabweans, just approach a few and ask them “Would you like us to bomb you?” and see what they say.

      1. Cliff
        March 20, 2011

        StevenL,

        I think you miss the point; no one wants us to bomb them. I have spoken to many Zimbabweans and other black Africans and they do often see Mugabee as a bit of a hero that stood up to the British and continues to stick two fingers up at them.
        I actually expressed a view that the wars we have been taking an active part in recently, are wrong and do nothing for our nation nor our reputation in the Arab andMuslim worlds.
        I was making the point of our government’s hypocracy relating to cutting services, that many people feel are essential but, still finding money to get involved in this latest egotistical folly.

        I do wonder how we are going to pay for this latest military action, Perhaps we will bomb the hell out of Libya and con them into allowing us to rebuild it using the “assetts we have frozen.” It has been said in the past that a war can be good economically in terms of jobs created and I suspect even more so if we can get someone else to pay for it.

        I do not like Gadaffi nor many of the other dictators in that part of the world and beyond but, I do wonder how we in this country, would handle a similar “rebellion” if our government became even more unpopular and listened even less to the voiceof the people. If our own “popular rebellion” overwhelmed the police, would our government call in the army and if another country encourages the “freedom fighters” to fight harder and promised to arm them just how would our government act?

        So just to make it clear for you; I do not want our country to get involved in Libya in my name, I did not want us to get involved in Afghanistan nor Iraq and I don’t want us to bomb Libya. I supported the Falkland’s war because another nation invaded our territory, there is a big difference between defending our interests and attacking another country to protect the West’s oil supply.

        1. Cliff
          March 20, 2011

          Sorry;

          Final paragraph should read;-

          “So just to make it clear for you; I do not want our country to get involved in Libya in my name, I did not want us to get involved in Afghanistan nor Iraq and I don’t want us to bomb Zimbabwe. I supported the Falkland’s war because another nation invaded our territory, there is a big difference between defending our interests and attacking another country to protect the West’s oil supply.”

  16. Martin
    March 18, 2011

    Groan – flat broke and off to another expensive war.

    I hope someone on “our” side has the ability to get through Libya’s SAM screen. Libya’s Mig23s are not to be underestimated either especially when combined with IL-78 tanker aircraft.

    1. VIVID
      March 18, 2011

      Plus our hardware. please .

    2. StevenL
      March 19, 2011

      The yanks have all manner of wizardry.

  17. Mike Stallard
    March 18, 2011

    OK. And what about the principal? Isn’t it wrong to interfere in other people’s countries?

    The only defence seems to be: 1. What about the poor civilians that are going to get pulled to pieces by the pro Gadafi army? 2. We need the oil.

    The second is easy: everyone agrees, whoever they are, that the oil has to get through. It is not an issue. (Bless you!)
    The first is just as easy: What about Bob Mugabe in Rhodesia? Or President Ahmadinejad in Iran? Or the poor people who get done over by the pirates in the Gulf? Or the Chinese Catholics…..

    So why can’t the Arabs interfere in our country too? Another touch of 9/11 perhaps?

  18. Ross J Warren
    March 18, 2011

    I must admit to having misjudged the International Community in this case. I was convinced that nothing would be agreed until it was already far to late. I am not so gung-ho as call this a “triumph” of British diplomacy, but even so I am impressed and pleased by the result. Some credit must go to D.C. and W.H.

    Having said that ,I do worry that we are being dragged into another conflict at a time when we are ill prepared for additional commitments. As John rightly says “I want to see Arab countries with perhaps the assistance of France and Italy undertake this task. They are the neighbors with the planes to do the job and the airfields nearby.” There should be little need for British War planes to be involved.

    1. VIVID
      March 18, 2011

      Too

  19. waramess
    March 18, 2011

    Maybe you might then persuade David Cameron to stand back and let the Italians and the Arabs to take their turn rather than rushing in once again.

    After all the Government should be looking at ways to stop spending taxpayers money, not finding “respectable” ways of asking for more.

  20. BobE
    March 18, 2011

    From the air, when you bomb things then you will also kill civillians. This is what happened in the early days of Iraq. Its also impossible to tell between rebels and Government forces. Boots on the ground is the only way to descriminate.
    Nato Peace keepers should be put in.

    1. sjb
      March 18, 2011

      The risk of killing civilians can be topically illustrated by the deaths this month of ten Afghanis: an elderly relative of Karzai and nine boys collecting firewood.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8373818/Nato-shoots-dead-Hamid-Karzais-relative-by-mistake.html

  21. Johnny Zero
    March 18, 2011

    We shall be forced to place “Boots on the Ground” witihn days, as the odd pilot who bails out is captured, then put on show in front of the World Media by Ghaddafi. The Government Forces will not be turned back, nor will Ghaddafi flee, until Foreign Troops in numbers are seen in Libya supporting the Rebels. Lets hope that such troops are Arab Troops and not ours. I cannot see Saudi Arabia sending in any Military Troops as they have just invaded Bahrein, on the side of the Dictatorship Monarchy there. The Saudi’s want “democracy” like a hole in the head.

    1. alexmews
      March 19, 2011

      Turkey?

  22. English Pensioner
    March 18, 2011

    As usual, no-one can reach agreement on what to do until its too late. (Does the EU have a policy yet?)
    If action had been taken a few days ago whilst Gadaffi’s troops were crossing the desert towards Benghazi, they could have been attacked from the air with little risk of large civilian casualties. Now that they are there, all that can be done is to try to cut their supply lines which is unlikely to suffice.

  23. zorro
    March 18, 2011

    “I want to see Arab countries with perhaps the assistance of France and Italy undertake this task.’ – The triumph of hope over expectation…..You are being ironic aren’t you, John?

    zorro

  24. Andrew Johnson
    March 19, 2011

    Still haven’t seen any statement from Mr Cameron, or read any comments here or elsewhere, laying out compelling reasons why it is in Britain’s interest to be involved in military action against Libya. Why Libya and not ……….? fill in the blanks from dozens of countries. As Mrs Thatcher once famously said No, No, No!

  25. Godfrey
    March 22, 2011

    I wonder how the big nations are so much interested in people who have taekn arms to fight thier regime and complitely forget the innocent unborn who are aborted every minute on a strike of a pen .
    They will support any dictator as long he is thier puppet ,but will bedumb else where when people are deing .
    For Libya’s I wonder what sort of peaceful demonstrators that take arms to raid the police and army barracks .
    I pray that in an effrot to get rid of the dictator ,they are not creating another safe haven for
    iislamic foundemtalists.

Comments are closed.