Cameron's principled stand over Libya

M. Rowley

Just look at where 'principled stands' have got us in the past. Libyans need to decide who rules their country, and the UK should stay well out of it.

Vulture

You may well be impressed by Dave's incoherent and frankly pathetic burblings, Fraser, but precious few others are. Let's just take a reality check.

Vulture

The reality is that Obama won't move a muscle.

Norman Dee

I am becoming more and more confused with Cameron, he goes to Brussels and gets angry about their lack of reaction to Libya, and then rolls over for a tickle when the EUSSR starts telling us what to do in our own country. If he saved some of that passion for defending us he would be a far better PM.

Dennis Churchill

“Britain and France would, of course, need America were they to implement a no-fly zone – our armed forces haven’t a chance of doing this alone”
Says it all.
So Cameron and Sarkosy wants to decide the USA’s foreign policy. The European political class seem to have the same grasp of reality as the National Union of Students.

Ryan

Utter rubbish!

Cameron has proven himself incompetent to lead the UK for his eagerness to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state.

Was there a refferendum or election in Libya?
Does he know that up to 70% of Libyans actually love and support Gadaffi?

The Libyan leader has far more support from his people than Cameron - who had to form a coalition government!

Shame on Cameraon - he is an unfit new world order puppet, dancing to the tunes of the bankers and oil corporations, twisting democracy through deceptive media support.

Hugo Chav

I think this Stratfor video explains why Sarko is politicing the way he is over Libya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEjpkNsjOBQ&feature=feedu

TomTom

The Mouse That Roared revisited

TrevorsDen

The army cannot do anything alone anyway - it - the west - can only act if the UN allow it.
Thats why actually pursuing our interests with money rather than bullets (which clearly we cannot sustain) is better.

The USA is being very cowardly over this - Obama is showing his true colours. I think we can expect pull backs in Afghanistan before his election campaign. we had better be prepared ourselves.

Perry

'Cameron has been far clearer than Obama'

Anyone is clearer than Obama, - apart from Prescot and his fellow travellers on the gravy train.

dan

Britain and France can not do it alone they need US, pretty much sums up why Obama should hang back,

The regional powers here are the Arab League, which has voted for a No Fly Zone, ok implement it then both Saudi and Egypt have AEW aircraft, have airr refuelling tankers and have hundreds of combat aircraft much more modern than Ghaddaffis 20 year old Migs.

Next regional power is African Union, nowadays actualy all in favour of democracy etc, South Africa and Etheopia and maybe Angola only nations with Air Force capable of participation but why not.

European Union or NATO Europe states, well if you start with the powers on the Med, you have Spain with bases in the Balearics, and a Carrier, which has just been leading a major NATO exercise in the Med, France, with it's own AEW aircraft and Tankers, a Carrier and bases in Corsica, Italy with bases in Sardinia, and Scily, 2 Carriers and tankers, Greece, with bases on Crete.

If US still has 50,000 men in Iraq, 100,000 plus in Afganistan, nervous about North Korea, the US should provide support if the local powers wish to intervene and actually why is that not assumed to be the fellow Arabs, what was the expensive Al Yamannah contract or the Us aid to Egypt for if they are not going to use it.

Iain

Ask him to state clearly and publicly how many UK soldiers and Libyan civilians will die as a result of British intervention. Thinking war can help is the ultimate sentimentality! It always kills more than it saves. Remember Iraq!

TomTom

"I think we can expect pull backs in Afghanistan before his election campaig"

Karzai asked NATO to leave yesterday.....very thoughtful now that PIMCO will no longer buy US Treasuries

sinosimon

@Ryan one can make either of two assumptions:
you have been drinking some of muammar's nescafe or internet connections are up and running in Tripoli and you are Saif and I claim my 10 dinar prize.......

or you are just such a frothing SWP useful idiot, that still cries into his Stalin pillow because uncle joe is dead, that the reality based community is all to confusing for your overheated little brain.

whichever of these is true please leave the adults alone and go and play nicely in the corner, there's a good lad.

Derek

Cameron, was the first world leader to react properly and with the appropriate response the others are procrastinating and dithering.

Rhoda Klapp

Attacking a sovereign country (and make no mistake, a proper no-fly zone is not without violence) is a serious thing. Ghaddaffi is engaging rebels. He is allowed to do so, the only thing which distinguishes this instance is that we don't like him. It isn't up to the Arab League, or the UN. to decide on the legality, only to give cover for some third party. inevitably the US, to intervene.

This would all be a lot more honest if one state said 'we don't like you, we declare war' to the other. Then maybe whoever it was could act in a timely manner, rather than wait for endorsement by a bunch of other crooked regimes. MG was welcome at the UN a matter of weeks ago. No criticism of his regime was countenanced.

Let's make this logical and consistent. All we have now is hand-wringers spoiling for a chance to interfere in a rebellion, or maybe a civil war, out of emotion. It is not sensible, and it is not risk-free. Time we managed our affairs on the Parker Principle, with great power comes great responsibility. And Rhoda's corollary, with no power comes no say.

TGF UKIP

But, looking at your NoW page today, clearly not so impressed with your former other best mate, Nick.

Further invites to Chevening not been forthcoming, have they Fraser?

Marc Oliver

I can stand the thought of rebels dying in battle - they have a natural right to try to overthrow Gaddafi and he has a natural right to attempt to stop them. We dealt with him, and we would deal with them: oil, you know.

I find it harder to stomach the thought of the cruel vengeance Gaddafi will inflict on his enemies, should he triumph, behind the walls of Libyan jails. No-one can doubt that his reprisals will be bloody and long. He and his gang are land-based sharks, utterly merciless carnivores, and we haven't just found it out.

If righteousness is ever to triumph over realpolitic, we should probably try to ensure that Gaddafi falls. But we should expect no thanks for it. Whatever we do, or don't do, we shall be wrong, wrong, wrong, in the eyes of most of the people of the region. That seems to be the designated role of the West there, nowadays - to soak up the blame for the failures of Islamic society.

Cameron seems to be rather a good man, as politicians go, and an optimist. I am watching his career with great interest.

Gawain

I agree with Fraser. A no fly zone now looks as if it will be needed. If Gaddafi starts to move on Benghazi just watch Milibland and crew flip and accuse Cameron of being negligent for not already having a no fly zone in place. Miliband and Alexander have been way off the pace on this issue !

In my view Gaddafi is a much more serious threat to people in this country than the Taliban. The last time we upset him he arranged for a 747 to be blown up over Scotland. If he survives again he and his sons will make sure we know about it. His values are Hobbesian and if you are not his friend, you are his enemy. A no fly zone will be messy and innocent people will be hurt, but many fewer than if Gaddafi survives.

GDT

None of our business.
Let Libya sort itself out.
When will the "West" learn that regime change and democracy building can only end in one outcome?
Cameron would be better served focusing on problems closer to hand.

mr cross

i have just got out of Tripoli i had no assistance at all from the uk gov we were being bombed and shot at in tajura and my office was close to green sq the truth is every single person supporting the brother is forced to do so by death they are all family of members of his cabinet and armed killing squads if they do not come out and wave green flags ect there houses are blown up and families are taken away and killed contact me ill explain whats really happening there its wholesale murder in Tripoli . i gave telephone to paris news and i know much more than i can say as ill be returning soon and my life will be in danger

Lydia Tipolitana

@Ryan Your existential assumptions on Gaddafi support are ridiculously inaccurate. I can tell you because I actually know, that the majority of Libyans are not supporters of Gaddafi and his tyranical regime. The small groups you see on the media are the ones who are either paid highly or terrorised into showing support for him. Libyan people are no different from other humans, they want to live in peace, benefit from good education and health institutions and have the freedom to genuinely paticipate in their society in whatever form they choose to do so. Make no mistake, what is being held up as 'the people's committees' are nothing but corrupt regime led mouthpieces. I know all this because I am Libyan and have witnessed this first hand.

yarnefromhorsham

The UK has enough on its plate and in some cases we are already "not fit or equiped for purpose" without getting involved here.
The Arab League has stated recently that they do not think that they require a UN resolution for a NFZ so lets just let them get on with it and surprise us. Lets just let this latest gung ho venture pass to some other countries after all they might benefit from the experence.

Liz Brown

Cameron may be taking a principle stand but it is not for us to defend either Gaddaffi or the rebels - Matthew Parris was spot on in his article in yesterday's Times. If we are called on to provide humanatarian aid that is a different matter. Nor can we afford to become involved in another war - we have sufficient enemies in the Moslem world without inviting more

Simon Stephenson.

Principled my back foot.

What statesmanship is about is ensuring that while emotion should be a constituent of reason, it isn't allowed to triumph over it. Liberal interventionism, however, is actually about the precise opposite of this. Making expansive, but futile populist gestures to get a round of applause from those not used to thinking in more than one dimension, and brushing closer-to-home difficulties under the carpet, because actually dealing with them in advance would be too unpopular.

And God, how the marketing revolution, with its invitation to disregard truth and reality, has helped bring this absurd situation about.

Fergus Pickering

Of course we can stand idly by and watch civilians massacred We often do. The question is what we should do on THIS occasion. I am also not sure that a civilian with a gun or a tank can truly be called a civilian. I suppose Cameron is on a win/win if he urges intervention, nobody intervenes annd then horrid things happen. He will be right and romantic and lose not a single soldier - a sort of Menzies Campbell solution that ought to go down well with Liberal Democrats.

Publius

And when a no-fly zone fails to stop the civil war, what then? Whose army is going to intervene on the ground?

And when innocent civilians end up being bombed while trying to enforce a no-fly zone, and we see pictures of grieving wives and children, and screaming condemnations of the Great Satan, what then?

Will Turkey with its huge military be intervening? Will any of the Arab League be intervening? Will the African Union ("African solutions to African problems") be intervening?

And, finally, do these "liberal interventionists" understand the Arab world? No they don't. See Korski passim.

Vulture

A score or so posts so far - and not a single one ( even Trevor has changed his tune) supporting Fraser's stirring call for yet another Western Intervention in the Middle East. After all the staggering successes of the last ones.

I suggest that Fraser is imbibing whatever perception-altering substance Dave has had.

How he can advocate yet another military adventure after Iraq and Afghanistan simply beggars belief. Even Obama has more sense.

So let's puncture the sweet dream with a few stubborn facts.

1) Britain and France lack the military means to impose a No Fly Zone on their own.
- Therefore it ain't going to happen.

2) The Arab League are a pointless talking shop. They cannot command a single soldier. How many divisions has the League, as Joe Stalin might have asked. None at all. So their call for a NFZ is meaningless hot air.
-Therefore it ain't going to happen.

3) A UN resolution to use military force would be vetoed by Russia and China, - Therefore it ain't goung to happen.

4) The EU, as usual, cannot make up its mind to do anything useful. Ditto NATO -
Therefore it ain't going to happen.

5) However abhorrent Ghadaffi may be, he is the recognised ruler of Libya and is therefore entitled to use force to put down an armed rebellion - as any Government would. It looks as though he will have done so before any putative Western action.
-Therefore it ain't going to happen.

So what your post amounts to, Fraser, is praise for Dave's 'principled' words, while knowing full well that he cannot back up his fighting talk with any action.

Threatening enemies with force you cannot command is not principled - it is irresponsible, childish folly. Just what we expect from the heir to Blair of course.

Baron

Cameron would be hard put to enforce a no-fly zone over a Lego land, it beggars belief he keeps on ranting about it, the only rationale that may explain it is a diversion from problems closer at home, you know, the cuts and stuff.

oldtimer

The only principle I see here is get the USA to do the heavy lifting when you want to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries.

It is not obvious that a no fly zone will do what Cameron expects and wants it to do. Others above have already pointed out examples.

It is not obvious that the UN or NATO will support the NFZ idea. So on what authority will Cameron proceed? Is he now obliged to secure authority from the House of Commons?

I note that a number of journalists have been briefed by No 10 to run this story today about a principled Cameron but I doubt it commands popular support. By chance I listened to an interesting discussion on AlJazeera this am in which both Lord Malloch Brown and the Director of Chatham House expressed their doubts about the efficacy of a NFZ. They put more store on making the most of the unanimity already achieved on the UN Security Council. This seems to me to be the wiser, more effective approach. On Friday, Lord Mandelson observed, talking to Adam Boulton, that on foreign affairs Cameron was in danger of looking out of his depth. For the first time in my life I was in danger of agreeing with him.

Rhoda Klapp

I think we need to invite Fraser back to explain it to us again, we are, or many of us are, in need of re-education in terms of what constitutes a sensible foreign policy.

Ian Walker

I'd be very worried if there were any aircraft at all in Strike Command, since it hasn't existed since 2007. It's Air Command nowadays.

We could always use the navy. The Type-45s have a specific designated role to go close inshore and provide missile-based air cover for ground forces. The Aster-30s would easily defeat anything in the Libyan air force.

Fatbloke on tour

Trevor

You do talk some tripe.
The NFZ is last weeks news.

Dave the Rave's comments aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

The ground war will be all over when they get withing shooting distance of Benghazi, so make that Wednesday.

The rebels now understand how poorly organised they are and that raw emotion only lasts so long against cold steel.

The MG supporting forces now are up to speed and know what they can do and what the rebels cannot.

MG Forces = Can't do cities with limited casualties.
Anti MG Rebels = Can't fight in the open against heavy infantry / tanks.

The MG startegy will be work the open space and isolate the cities.

Misratah = Quarantined
Benghazi = Under pressure
Tobruk = Irrelevent

All the oil pipelines and facillities will be under his control and the cities will be either under his control or begging for food from the UN.

Consequently get real.

The West and the anti-MG Burton's commandos played their joker but they have lost.

Best we can hope for is a split enforced by the UN with enough territory for the people of West Libya to make a go of it on their own using their own talent and efforts.

Worst scenario would be three enclaves like Gaza reliant on aid and at the mercy of MG.

As for the actors you laud, complete and utter tripe.

NS / Frog establishment = Busted flush.
Dave the Rave = Bollock naked, bumping his gums as he walks through thorn bush country.
BO / US = Cannot fart on his own on this one, he needs a UN wrapper to stop MG getting even more support.
AL / House of Saud = The stench of hypocrisy will get to their own people soon enough.

So if you want to talk about the future of Libya could you please stop going over your wish list and get real.

MG will play oil for blood.

If he gets the oil the rebels will get to keep their blood.

Only question I have is MG's level of rationality on this.

He may want to get out the piano wire and make a spectacle of all those who have dared to rise up against him.

At the first sign of piano wire then the West has a problem, come out swinging or shut down YouTube.

Western Independent

Cameron's position has parallels with Blair's in 1999, although he is unlikely to advocate "liberal interventionism" as such. For some background on Blair's speech in Chicago see http://bit.ly/fI266V.

yank

I'm still amused at how you all so casually jabber about using the US military, paid for by US taxpayers, to execute your whimsy.

And I suppose you'd also rather the US taxpayers continue to buy the Bank of England's paper?

But that sovereign bankruptcy hasn't seemed to slow down the yapping Yorkie lapdog from yammering on about no-fly-zones, has it?

Nor the french poodle's yapping, it appears, although it seems the frogs have a plan at least, and one geared to their national interest, not humanity (they watched if not facilitated Rwanda, as we know).

The Srebrenica massacre took place under a NFZ. So did the massacres in Iraq. So will the one in Libya.

No matter what the yorkie and poodle yip over, they cannot change reality.

Suggest you all on that pile of rocks take your ears off your weak government's yapping, foolishly scrambling for credibility abroad to compensate for weakness at home. You all traded with Khadaffi, and gave him back his mass murderer, and 4 short weeks ago were not even close to making an unkind statement about it all, let alone taking action. BP is important, afterall.

And no need to protest all this, the same soggy Blairist dollop is in control over there today, as we conservatives know all too well. This piece from the leftist Spectator spells that all out quite clearly.

Suggest you all take your eyes off Libya, and put them on the Falklands. The next vision you see will likely be of the boys being frogmarched out of there bound and blindfolded. The Argies have seen the yorkie's impotency, as this Libyan fiasco has made plain. And the only recourse is paying the Argies tribute, because absent that cash payment, those islands will belong to them.

Jeremy

I'm with you on this, Fraser.

The consequences of not intervening could be worse for us in the longer run. There is the opportunism of China to consider. Also, if the wider world draws the lesson from Libya that the West will stand by, allow this to happen and do nothing, then that would set an evil precedent.

The American shilly-shallying and pooh-pooing over the matter is probably as a consequence of the British having thought of the no-fly zone first. You know how insecure they are when it comes to that sort of thing...

Lydia Tripolitana

I note the satisfaction in the tone of 'leave it to them to fight it out' 'he is justified in putting down a rebellion' comments: if he regains control and comes out with another Lockerbie style attrocity what will be your tone then?

Lydia Tripolitana

and by the way - his regime has been found reponsible for arming the IRA and killing PC Yvonne Fletcher.

John B

Publius makes some excellent points.

Also, I continue to struggle with this government's attempts to balance ring fencing £9 billion in foreign aid and hosing billions to the EU while still dramatically reducing the spending on our already appallingly overstretched and underfunded armed forces.

And when I now read that we are closing libraries and threatening to remove bus passes and winter fuel allowances from the elderly, I have even more reason to question how we justify the overseas aid and payments to the EU - never mind getting involved in another military "adventure".

So regardless of whether intervention in Libya is justified - how can our government justify British involvement? How much will THAT cost us, on top of Iraq and Afghanistan?

What price will we have to pay next - everyone being fed by soup kitchens and freezing to death in the winter?

And what do our neglected armed forces have left to fight with?

How long before the senior members of our armed forces are forced to say "enough - no more"?

Lydia Tripolitana

'None of our business'? Gaddafi's support of IRA led to the deaths of many British citizens. His regime shot dead PC Yvonne Fletcher on a London street and got away with it. His regime has been found guilty of being part of the Lockerbie bombing. None of our business?

Lydia Tripolitana

Gadaffi has been publically hanging his opponents for the last 42 years, for most of this time there has been no youtube/internet facility, nevertheless, his brutality has been widely known and accepted outsiders. There is no reason to think that it will be any different when he takes his revenge if or when he regains control of Libya.

Cogito Ergosum

Well said M. Rowley 1029/13/3/2011.

Well said Vulture 1225/13/3/2011.

Cameron's words are not a principled stand, they are preposterous posturing; from a man who lives with words rather than with the real world.

Publius

@Lydia Tripolitana

Look, Lydia Tripolitana, we either go in their properly, and I mean properly, with all that it entails, or we don't.

And we have neither the resources nor the will to go in their properly.

So, as Yank rightly says, either put your blood where your mouth is, or stop yapping.

Tiberius

Cameron indeed wins again on policy, Fraser, but Matt's column (saying virtually the same as yours) got there first. You really must get your squiffy Chief Exec on the right side of the divided opinion on Cameron if you want to be on the podium when the medals are being given out.

However, on the practical issue of military action, of course Obama needs to be at the party. That would be the case even if our defence capability hadn't been mangled by Brown.

To those who argue that Cameron is like the US President (weak, wet or indecisive), I'd say tish.

TomTom

"Suggest you all take your eyes off Libya, and put them on the Falklands. "

Good point. "The Type 42 destroyer HMS York has set off on a five-month deployment to the South Atlantic.

Its mission will involve patrolling the Falklands and South Georgia,"

It will relieve HMS Gloucester which has ceased deployment....HMS York entered Benghazi Port mid morning on 2 Mar 11 and berthed soon after.

So what RN ships are defending The Falklands ?

Michael

You *really* still don't understand, do you Nelson. It's very worrying because there are others, like Cameron, who appear to think the same.

Herbert Thornton

As Lydia said, if Gaddafi wins we are quite likely to experience another Lockerbie.

Unfortunately, if the rebels' winning puts Libya in the hands of Muslim fundamentalist extremism, we are just as likely to experience another London Tube bombing.

Cameron's mindset is the same as that of the rest of the politically correct British Establishment. It resembles that of a mischievous childish who so enjoys the sound of smashing glass, that it persists in throwing stones at the windows of its own house - and then claims that doing it is a Good Thing because it lets in more fresh air.

But we are not seeing just windows being broken by children. We are seeing Britain being destroyed by the Labour, Liberal and Tory parties, while they and the Establishment demonise UKIP and BNP for trying to preserve it.

yank

Fatbloke, you really are on to this one, I must admit.

And those rebels really are a rabble, apparently. I've been visiting their English language website for a few days now, and it hasn't been updated even once. The boys are a rabble, sorry. Even if they had to fly hard copy out to Italy and have a website updated there, this is an absolutely essential element of their effort, and they're too stupid to understand it. They're going down, with or without a no fly zone. It's just a matter of who gets slaughtered.

http://ntclibya.org/english/

And here's the thing about Dave's useless yammering. It plays well to the rubes over there, in the short term, but he's pissing off the US government, the same one he'll be begging to drive off the Argies. That's the longterm, and he's foolishly forsaking it.

Since we and Dave are about talking military fantasy here, how about the thousands and thousands of real military the US has stationed on that pile or rocks take over the country? Shouldn't be too hard. Get rid of the useless Parliament, and install a proper military government. I'll be the military governor. I'll appoint Rhoda Klapp as governor general, and TomTom as Finance Minister. Meanwhile, I'll be headed to your North country, I understand there's good golfing up there. And as for you wets' and leftists' behavior, I better get nothing but good reports of you from Madame Klapp and TomTom. If my golf game is interrupted, I'll not be a happy camper.

That's all got as much possibility of happening as morally and fiscally bankrupt David Cameron has of executing military and diplomatic will in Libya. Hell, the Libyans are bigger threat to invade that pile of rocks than the reverse.

wrinkled weasel

If the comments have anything to go by, this is not a popular opinion. Even if we disregard the anti-Cameron sentiment, the general feeling is that Cameron should leave well alone in Libya.

Primary in the debate is the subject of intervention in the affairs of another country. And so it should be. Star Trek is very clear about this: It is the Prime Directive.

The Prime Directive, also known as Starfleet General Order 1, is one of Starfleet's most important binding principles about noninterference in another culture's internal affairs, natural development and progression. The Prime Directive forbids Starfleet officers from interfering with the social order of any planet. (TNG: "Half a Life") Violation of the Prime Directive is generally considered a court martial offense followed by severe punishment unless sufficient justification can be made for the violation. Even though there have been incidences where Starfleet personnel have decided on strong ethical grounds to ignore the Prime Directive, on the whole it is believed to do a lot more good than harm. (TNG: "Justice", VOY: "Prime Factors")(Source: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive )

Star Trek, or the people who wrote it, are right. It does not matter if Klingons are smelly, egregious people who eat disgusting food. You cannot go wading into intergalactic warfare just because Klingons are not like us.

The bit I like about the Prime Directive is that "Even though there have been incidences where Starfleet personnel have decided on strong ethical grounds to ignore the Prime Directive, on the whole it is believed to do a lot more good than harm." Yes, it does more good than harm. But not always.

On Earth, the same rule should apply. Since 1945, almost all instances of waging war on a sovereign state by those of another sovereign state have ended in disaster. It is not just that one state has assumed a specious case for hegemony, it is that the natural evolution of cultures has rarely benefited from armed Conquest.

There are obvious examples of this, such as Vietnam, which is possibly why Mr Obama is not chomping at the bit to join Cameron in flying in, all guns blazing. Either that or he just cannot make up his mind.

We in Britain are having an internal battle. Certain religio-cultural groups in this country are waging war on us. They will not win, because ultimately you cannot change the way people live by coercion. Even if these religio-cultural groups succeed by sheer weight of numbers, they will not subjugate an indigenous population. Given this, it is not unthinkable that in 50 or 70 years time - no more - Britain and perhaps Europe, may need the assistance of another continent to overthrow a tyranny.

If that happens, will the naysayers be moaning about intervention, or will they be pleading for help?

Magnolia

I agree with Fraser.
Most of the comments are cowardly and selfish dressed up as pragmatic and logical.
We believe in freedom and that means selling democracy to the rest of the world and at the moment some of the people in the arab world are asking to see our wares, so lets go and show them some.
Things don't always happen in just the way that we want them to and, however messy, this is the time and Mr Cameron, the opportunist, knows.

MaxSceptic

It is not as if the rebels are going to turn Libya into a lovely, warm, fuzzy liberal democracy if they win.

Personally, I don't give a tinker's cuss who rules them so long as they don't export their violence and nasty way of life.

If they do threaten us, then we should flatten them - no holds barred.

Simon Mennie

Cameron mutates into a hawk which continues to squawk but can't fly;Sarkozy trailing in domestic polls and with an eye on the 2012 presidential election unilaterally recognises an entity that will soon control little more than the dimensions of a North African sandpit. It's all over,bar the housecleaning that is bound to ensue and doubtless has already started,once Gaddafi is fully back in charge.

When the AL states that it is in favour of a NF zone it simply means that it would prefer the US or the Europeans,or both, to police it.The two countries which border Libya,Egypt and Tunisia are in political crisis and impotent;the other players of any importance in the region,viz Saudi Arabia,Algeria and Syria are unlikely to endorse let alone participate in any direct action at Western behest in what is after all the internal affairs of another Arab state and which is likely to expose their own regimes to more internal unrest.Gaddafi has probably killed no more in Libya, and possibly fewer, than have died in Algeria and Syria at the hands of their governments.

What we are left with in the short term is a partially weakened,vengeful and even more paranoid regime in Tripoli. Now that the opposition has come out into the open Gaddafi will wreak mayhem but it may yet prove his undoing.The ruling clique have been shaken if not stirred and possibly some may conclude that their longer term survival precludes a future for Libya as a toxic unstable pariah state and consequently the Mad Colonel's existence as head of that state i.e an internal Ceascescu style solution.

Just a thought.

Tiberius

Wrinkled Weasel: revisit the episode "The Apple" for Kirk's wider interpretation of the Prime Directive.

Ken

The only winners here are going to be some expensive City law firms.

As soon as the mad Libyan resumes control over the rag-tag renegades he will doubtless instruct counsel to sue the government and us taxpayers for millions for the illegal freezing of his and his family's cash and property assets.

Once that's underway he will be looking to take revenge on BP and other British interests in the north African desert.

Cameron and Sarkozy have ridiculously jumped on the wrong camel and we will all be paying for a very costly ride shortly.

yank

He may want to get out the piano wire and make a spectacle of all those who have dared to rise up against him.

At the first sign of piano wire then the West has a problem, come out swinging or shut down YouTube.

.

A brilliant use of historical imagery, as conflated with the contemporary situation and technology, Fatbloke. I doff my chapeau.

Of course, even the meager educational standards of the day should permit one to understand your reference to "piano wire". But I wonder, how many in the audience here in fact do understand it? I'm speaking particularly to the Spectator chavs... do they get it?

They seem not to understand even recent history, so could we rightly expect them to get that of decades before?

I mean, I'm not sure whether Oliver Stone has made a movie on it or anything, so it may not have broken through to them.

No, this just isn't fair to them, Fatbloke. Your imagery will have to go, and you must spell it all out.

GDT

Why Libya and not Zimbabwe? Nothing to do with Democracy, everything to do with oil. Obviously not as much in Libya as in Iraq.
Let's face facts. China ain't going to support any action....and they are the main player at the show.

St Bruno

I wonder who’s pulling Mr Cameron’s strings.
Is the country so far indebted to the Muslim/Arab world that he feels he must pay back with more blood of our Army, Navy and Airforce? Have no lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan been taken onboard?

I can’t really see Mr Cameron as a modern day Lawrence of Arabia riding across the desert on a camel uniting the warring tribes against the Ottoman Empire, can you?

When Col. Gaddafi has been deposed what then? Leave the door open for The Islamic Brotherhood to step in and impose Iranian Shari’ah law on the population democratically?

This conflict is a civil war and as such should be left well alone. By all means help when the victor speaks but not before to negotiate oil production. Leave the Human Rights to the UN to sort out and forget NATO for once.

gwjd

As always, the French will fight to the last drop of Anglo-American blood.

Archie

Cameron's posturing is breath-taking! Having just gutted our armed forces, pledged to give billions of "foreign aid", and even more to the preposterous EU, he now proposes another foreign adventure which on present evidence is doomed from the outset! And 'yank'; who the fuck do you think you're talking to? If you want rubes I suggest you look no further than your own benighted shores, the lard-arsed inhabitants of which couldn't find Canada on a map, never mind Libya or this "pile of rocks"!

Lydia Tripolitana

Look Publius - Firstly Libyan blood is spilling - & in large quantities. They are fighting - real fighting with little to defend themselves - against an armed tyrant. They are not asking for any outsiders to venture into combat for them - they just need some assistance to give them a chance And no, I won't 'stop yapping' but you should because you sound as if you live in Hollywood. @HerbertThomspon Your assessment of the religous situation in Libya is wholly inaccurate - stereotypical Western view of 'them' - fanatic fundamentalism is not, and never will be, part of everyday life in Libya. But the danger is if this Western hypocrisy continues others will seek to gain capital from it. Just create a no fly zone - they are fighting for their freedom and will continue to do so.

Extranea

Liberal Interventionism is alive and well in David Cameron, and with the Arab Leagues pronouncement at the weekend this could turn into reality.

But lets not forget, this is not a democratic uprising anymore, this is a civil war. I'm not convinced liberal interventionism has a leg to stand on. http://bit.ly/eZqjZE

yank

Well, Mr. Archie, speaking of Canada, I don't hear the folks in Canuckistan jabbering on about invading Libya, as you all on that pile of rocks are doing.

And no need to find out where you all live, as we know all too well that you'll find us, to tap into the US Treasury again, and the blood of our young, to defend you as usual.

It's just a pity, that you all cannot defend yourselves, and yet yammer on about foreign wars to be fought by others. What folly.

Archie

Yank. For which you'll send us the bill - which we'll pay - whilst your moronic government showers money on our erstwhile enemies!

yank

You've never paid the last bills, Mr. Archie, why would this one by any different?

Never mind spreckenze deutsch. Spreckenze Russian?

Hell, I'm expecting your mate Khadaffi to come over there and have you spreckenzeing Libyan, before it's all over.

Not to mention the spreckenzeing Argentinian that'll be taking place shortly, in the South Atlantic.

Archie

Wrong! We finally paid YOUR bill to us for WWII about eight years ago! Your country should change its name to Morons-R-Us. Don't believe me? Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo

yank

Nope, sorry, no need to watch any videos, because whatever's been paid is only a portion of the total bill, and not inclusive of the full costs to keep you from having to type that post in German, and inclusive of none of the cost to keep you from having to type it in Russian.

You're welcome.

Archie

You should be thanking us. If it weren't for us you lot would be speaking French (or Spanish!) And by the way, that's "Sprechen sie Deutsch?

yank

It's spreckenze whatever your multiple conquerors say for you to spreckenze, absent the United States' involvement.

You're welcome.

Herbert Thornton

Yank,

I still don't believe that Hitler would have made the English speakers all speak German. German would on the other hand certainly have been taught as their first foreign language. It would, moreover, as language very much cognate with English, have proven much easier to learn than flabby French.

Now though, the British Isles are probably going to end up speaking Punjabi.

As for the teaching of Latin, substitute Arabic.

Geeza

"Cameron doesnâ™t seem to worry too much about a UN resolution, which heâ™d never get."

What, he'd never get a UN resolution?

You appear sure on this.

Five days after you wrote this Cameron has a UN resolution.

P Dipply

I agree with M.Rowlin, UK STAY OUT OF IT did you not learn anything with Iraq. Libia people will turn on us now all we have greated is a further problem. When is our government going to look after us and out us first.

Trevor Hill

Cameron should look after our domestic affairs and if he supports this action on Libya, why not Yemen, Bahrain,syria etc. The majority of Libyan people support Gadaffi , they are a sovereign state and should sort out their own problems. It is curious we dont interefer also in China and North Korea. Cameron should stop meddling and sort out the UK problems first. A sad week in the UK history.

t mullins

how can bombing libya be justified? cameron says it,s to protect innocent civilians and it is a popular uprising? if this is true why are most of the population on his side and fighting an armed rebels !?