Libyans must be allowed to get rid of Gaddafi themselves

The Gaddafi end-game

Even though oil and gas is at stake and this seems to concentrate the minds of some western politicians quite remarkably, any Western military intervention in Libya  would be  an insult to all those who have given their lives in opposing Gaddafi (and of course such intervention was never thought of in Tunisia and Egypt since they have little oil).

The Libyans need to get rid of Gaddafi themselves and their efforts and their scarifices should not be disparaged and mocked by an Iraq-like military intervention. Creation of a no fly zone or other limited actions to restrict Gaddafi’s potential for bloodshed but which did not involve any form of invasion is the maximum that should be considered.

But there are many shallow and unreliable politicians around in Europe. The Telegraph reports:

David Cameron and other Western leaders are on the brink of ordering military action against Col Muammar Gaddafi amid fears that the Libyan dictator could use chemical weapons against his own people.

The Prime Minister disclosed that he would not rule out “the use of military assets” as Britain “must not tolerate this regime using military forces against its own people”.

Sir John Major backed the stance and made clear that he believes the option of military force should not be removed from the table, if Gaddafi uses chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, on his own people.

But he said that the use of armed force should be “the last resort” and should be backed by overwhelming international support through the United Nations.

Asked if the international community should toughen its stance towards Libya if Gaddafi unleashes chemical weapons against his people, Sir John said: “I think it would and I think it should.”

I have no idea if the mustard gas is real or whether it is just “sexed up” in the style of the WMD stories propagated by a morally bankrupt Tony Blair, but I cannot help thinking of Iraq and the lies we were told then. Military intervention for saving life is justifiable but not when it is done for the sake of destroying non-existent WMD’s or when it is actually just to secure oil resources. How much healthier it would have been in Iraq if the Iraqis had got rid of Saddam themselves without the manipulation of the UN by the Bush/Blair lies and the subsequent massive and bloodthirsty intervention (and where the bloodshed still continues). After the events of the last 2 months and the downfall of Mubarak in Egypt I wonder how long Saddam could have continued before he would have been overthrown.

The use of fears of yet another WMD – in this case mustard gas – to justify an intervention seems like a rerun of Iraq  and will carry little credibility without some very clear evidence from an unimpeachable source. David Cameron or bunga bunga Berlusconi or the flighty Sarkozy just do not command that level of trust.

Perhaps Gaddafi should be allowed to join his friends in Belarus and he could recruit a new lot of Ukrainian nurses as well.

Tags: , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: