Most British Prime Ministers become enamoured of the quality of our armed forces and can't wait to try them out, like a child with a train set on Christmas morning. There was John Major with the Balkans, Tony Blair all over the world and now David Cameron with Libya. Anyway there's nothing like a military adventure to take people's minds off what is happening at home.
France wants to contain Libya because of immigration, the Lebanese have presumably been bribed and Britain, well, its Prime Minister seems drunk with power.
The sensible statesman, before joining battle, asks what the long term effects are going to be, and identifies an exit route. We appear to have done neither.
The prospect of the man responsible for Lockerbie surviving after we have joined an international effort aqgainst him is too awful to contemplate. So we are committed to removing him. If the 'no fly' zone proves not to be enough, we will have to go further.
And when Gaddafi goes or is killed, what then? Libya is a tribal country. Some tribes support Gaddafi, some would favour hard core islamism (is that what you want, Mr Cameron?), others are secular. If we remove Gaddafi who do we hand over to? Should we just walk away, leaving the country to descend into civil war? Or will we identify 'responsibilities' and have to stay there to keep the peace?
As to the no fly zone it woud be best if it were conducted by Arabs: Saudi, UAE, Egypt, using the expensive kit we have sold them. That way Gaddafi will be seen as an Arab problem. But what are the chances of that happening?
I don't like this at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment