Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Tories "Handy" War

David Cameron
Looking For His "Falklands"
(Just Like Mummy Thatcher!)
David Cameron's star was beginning to slip, almost as fast as the prime minister's grip on reality. Not known for his judgement, it appears he has had another lapse of the same, this time if his "handy" war in Libya fails the prime minister's judgement is likely to be exposed in a spectacular fashion.

With Gaddafi in power and seems to have been at the bottom of some terrorist attacks in Britian spanning over the past 40 years, I ask why now has this suddenly been pushed up the agenda and become all important to mainly France and the UK? On the face it they say (whoever "they" are), it is because it is a humanitarian act to save the Libyan people from certain massacre. However, I think this is just the political spin, it is not much to do with saving Eastern Libyans, it has to do with regime change and of course oil.

So okay, we have implemented a no-fly zone over Libya with the help of the USA, now what? Gaddafi is firmly ensconced in Tripoli with his supporters around him, what happens next? Does anyone actually believe that Gaddafi will just pack his bags like a good little despot and toddle off to exile somewhere? I hope he does, for the sake of the Libyan people I hope with all my heart that he does, but somehow I just do not see it, from what I have learned of Gaddafi, he means it when he says he will die before he leaves Libya and so do his sons, so if this is true what next? A no-fly zone and air strikes will not be able to reach Gaddafi, unless they have a "lucky strike", but that is debatable, he is surrounded by Libyan civilians, so targeting him with missiles is out of the question, whether you believe those civilians are there of their own free will or not, is neither here nor there, the fact is they are there, so what next? Gaddafi has now broken the second cease fire, he is now open flouting all the threats the might of the West and some of the Arab league can throw at him, the coalition may be winning the war of air strikes but Gaddafi is wining the war of words hands down. Yes he may be unbalanced, that does not change that fact that he still has the west of Libya as allies and hundreds of thousands of people as his supporters so he is still winning, so what next?

Do the coalition just pack up and go home saying they have been successful in pushing Gaddafi's forces back? If they do this then just as Christmas comes each year, Gaddafi will advance on the east of Libya before the last coalition jet has touched down back home, before debriefing Gaddafi will again be attacking the east of his country. Death threats and general threats do not scare Gaddafi, he just doesn't fear the loss of his own life, and neither do his sons, so how do you take on someone like Gaddafi and his sons? In his own mind we are wrong, we are the aggressors and we are the ones who once again are poking our collective noses into the affairs of another country, he firmly believes that he has right on his side, so taking on someone who is unafraid of death, unafraid of the consequences of being caught and who undoubtedly believes that he has right on his side, is a very difficult prospect.

The coalition forces know only too well that they will be unable to leave Libya until Gaddafi and his sons have been caught, arrested, charged and sent to the Hague to stand trial for human rights abuses and war crimes etc., so what they are saying about there being no ground forces is just a lie, if there is to be some kind of ending for Gaddafi in Libya, then he has to be caught and regime change forced, that cannot be achieved unless there are forces on the ground in Libya. If the coalition were hoping that after a few air strikes Gaddafi was going to retreat and allow a bunch of hopeful "rebels" to just come in and overthrow him and hand him over for a western type trial, they should think again - hastily, because that is never going to happen. As much as the eastern Libyans may hate Gaddafi, I very much doubt they will want the West getting their hands on him, what they will do if (and it is a huge if, a colossal if) they get hold of him is probably torture and murder him, what then? Do we then go after those rebels and put them on trial for war crimes? Or do we turn a blind eye to their murder and torture of another human being?

Today it has been announced that President Obama is looking to hand control of this mission over to someone else within the next few days, this speaks volumes, obviously Obama does not want to get caught up in a long protracted battle in Libya, he knows this is what is the strong likelihood so he is getting out now while he can. Apparently (so we are told) Nato is the likely recipient of control of this mission, but I have my doubts, for this to happen all countries need to be in agreement, with Germany and France openly bickering, China, Russia etc all dragging their heals and Turkey obviously displeased with what is happening and the Arab league's absolute reluctance to get involved further, for that to happen a minor miracle will have to take place. So where to now? If the Arab league pull out where does this leave Britain and France? Do we stay and police the no-fly zone with Gaddafi flouting it daily? How long is Britain going to stay in Libya? If we go in on the ground we will almost certainly lose the backing of the Libyans in the east who up until now have backed these air strikes. So what then?

If by some miracle Gaddafi is deposed of what then does this mean for Libya? They have no opposition party to take control of their government, they have no democratic infrastructure in place, in a country suddenly deposed of its despotic leader after 42 years, how does Libya in the immediate presence function as a country and let us not forget the other parts of the country. What happens if Gaddafi goes? Who takes over? The rebels? If so then who exactly are the rebels and who exactly have we aligned ourselves with in this fight against Gaddafi? What do we know about these people? Are they capable of taking over the running of a country as huge as Libya? Who is going to impose an interim government on Libya? The Arab League? Countries who are presiding over their human rights abuses. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemin, what is happening to people in these countries who are also trying to rise up against their governments? They are being shot at and killed, yet no one is doing anything about them.

I would like to ask our prime minister David Cameron what exactly has he got us and this country into in Libya and why? Isn't it a striking incidence when the two most gung-ho leaders, President Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britian are two leaders whose popularity is slipping along with people's perception of their integrity and their competence? President Sarkozy is up for re-election soon!

Both Sarkozy and Cameron wanted this action in Libya badly, it has served as a distraction for their people and their domestic issues, it has taken attention away from what Cameron is doing to the Welfare state, the NHS, education and police, he is in the process of ripping the guts out of Britain and replacing it with his Tory doning mates private companies, pretty soon Britain will be run by a board of directors all with their snouts in the Tory trough. and the situation in Libya will be worse then when we went rushing in to "help".

Civil war is set to rage in a divided Libya for the foreseeable future, how many people will lose their lives then? And all for what? So David Cameron could use the plight of the eastern Libyan people and try to increase his popularity, just like his "mummy" Thatcher did with the Falklands war. Incidentally David Cameron took  this action without first having the decency to come to the House and explain what was happening, just like Thatcher did with the Falklands. That is another broken promise, before the election Cameron promised he would consult with parliament and the people about such actions again - he lied.

Nick Clegg
Leader of The Liberal Party
(But for how long?)
What about the Liberals (as Clegg now likes them to be called?) Where do  they stand? They opposed the Iraq war which was carried out for much the same reasons but with the added complication that quite possibly Saddam could have blown people to bits, or murdered and maimed people using weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, bacterial or nuclear, which was always quite possible as he had carried out such an atrocity before with chemical weapons in Halabja, yet the Liberal democrats (the not part of government) voted against action in Iraq, so I am wondering how they can possibly justify sanctioning this action in Libya? It really does seem hypocritical to me, or are we to believe the Liberals in government really are just blatant opportunists hungry for power after so long out of government and would do or say anything to keep themselves in their ministerial cars and other trappings of power?

And no one seems to be addressing if Gaddafi stays in power, or leaves power, that the threat of terrorist attacks on this country have significantly increased!

No comments: