Anorak News | Gaddafi Has Already Won The War In Libya: The US, UK And UN Lose

Gaddafi Has Already Won The War In Libya: The US, UK And UN Lose

by | 18th, March 2011

COLONEL Muammar Gaddafi is some kind of mad genius. As soon as the UN Security Council issues Resolution 1973 to give support to military action against the Libyan Army under Gaddafi, mad dog announces an immediate ceasefire. Libya is now under an arms embargo, in a no-flight zone and has had its assets frozen.

Here’s a few highlights from the UN decree:

Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006)…

Amen to that.

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity…”

May? And may there also be other crimes against humanity in China, Bahrain, Congo, Iran, Yemen, Ivory Coast? Does the UN impose no fly zones there next? Or is Libya just an emotive issue, an example of the arbitrary rules at work?

Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”

Oh, how we love those human rights loving Arab nations and those African leaders. Happy days that they are on our side.

Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya…

So. What next?

Well, here’s US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“We are going to be not responsive or impressed by words, we would have to see actions on the ground and that is not yet at all clear. We will continue to work with our partners in the international community to press Gaddafi to leave and to support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people.”

Which Libyan people? The ones with Gaddafi or the ones against him? The US did not interfere because it wanted to play by the UN’s rules. Now Obama’s US is part of the force to keep Gaddafi from shooting more of his countrymen, it says it won’t shoot unless he shoots first.

And here’s Prime Minister David Cameron to say Britain would judge Colonel Gaddafi “by his actions not his words“.

Gaddafi’s actions in murdering 270 people on a PanAm flight over Lockerbie? That wasn’t enough for Britain to invade Libya and kick him out. But now Gaddafi is killing his own we take an interest. And that still not enough to boot him out. The mad dog stays in power and shows the West for what it is: a spent force.

So. Are we on the brink of another war? No. Gaddafi hasn’t the means to fight. Any war would be over in hours. It’s what comes next that scares the West and allows Gaddafi to stay in power. There is no case for war.

A few other views:

Jonathan Chait:

[T]he neocon model of standing up to aggression, while frequently wrong, is not always wrong. The model holds that dictators are like bullies, and if you make clear you’ll stand up to them, they’ll back down. … Opponents of intervening in Libya all seemed to assume that the threat of force would automatically mean employing force. This may not turn out to be a correct assumption.

Ryan Avent:

[H]aving involved itself here, it’s not clear how the mobilising powers will be able to avoid action elsewhere in the Middle East. It is also being reported today that the Yemeni government fired on protestors, killing at least 26 of them. UN action could conceivably empower other protesters in other countries to take a more vocal and aggressive line against oppressive regimes. Which could be a good thing, but only to the extent that UN members are actually prepared to intervene to prevent massacres.

Kori Schake:

Stepping back and letting others do the work certainly isn’t a bold or brave moment for American foreign policy, and it will have consequences that our government has been so stingy in support of the cause of freedom. But President Obama just isn’t willing to bear much freight for other peoples’ freedom. The only thing worse would be him committing our military forces to a fight he has little real interest in.


Kevin Drum:

I doubt that Qaddafi has simply folded his tent in the face of a UN resolution. More likely, he’s taking a breather to figure out how to continue prosecuting the war in a way that’s relatively safe from air power alone. If that’s the case, what’s Plan B?


Posted: 18th, March 2011 | In: Key Posts, Reviews Comments (4) | TrackBack | Permalink