NATO members and the media are breathlessly awaiting the anticipated conclusion of Muammar Gaddafi's reign in Libya. Some reports have already indicated the complete collapse of his government, the defection of his guard, the capture of his sons, and perhaps his own flight to escape the rebels hailed as freedom-fighters. Other reports have indicated that such celebratory pronouncements might yet be premature.
While there are few people outside his family and inner circle and whatever supporters he might have in Libya and elsewhere (Hugo Chavez comes to mind) who would support a continuation of Gaddafi's rule, one has to wonder about the manner in which his dictatorship is being concluded.
As part of the Arab spring, which turned into Arab summer and is likely to become Arab fall and winter in some countries both Middle Eastern and elsewhere as more and more people rise up against governmental forces with which they disagree, a mostly disorganized group of protesters in the eastern parts of Libya managed to catch the attention of western nations long interested in toppling the Gaddafi regime. When Gaddafi sought to put down what at the time appeared to be a minor rebellion, western nations seized upon these circumstances to convince the United Nations to pass a resolution calling for a no-fly zone and humanitarian aid including defense of citizens.
The United States and its NATO allies quickly took out both Libya's air defense and strike capabilities. This was quickly followed by NATO's own flights to strike at Gaddafi's forces striking back against the rebel forces. Apparently, the no-fly zone only meant that Libyans could not fly; it was okay for other countries to fly at will across the country's borders.
And recently it appears that no-fly also meant no-float, as NATO forces began attacking and sinking ships reportedly carrying troops loyal to the existing Libyan government. Early reports indicated that some of such troops were actually in retreat, but later reports took a more pro-NATO stance that the troops were really repositioning themselves to continuance battling the rebels.
And what of the rebels? Well, they were no longer as disorganized as once they appeared. By now, they had been trained and instructed by NATO advisors, as well as provided with weapons to combat the government.
And what of NATO's defense of civilians? It had now become an all-out effort to lead the rebels to victory, taking the offensive against any pro-government facility with air attacks.
Thus, what theoretically began as humanitarian assistance morphed into essentially a war against Gaddafi. And what began as a rebel protest morphed into a civil war morphed into a NATO-led coalition to destroy the Libyan government.
Regardless of the current contradictory media reports, it appears clear that Gaddafi's days are numbered if not already ended. What will result in Libya and for the Libyan people remains to be seen. Unfortunately, it would not be unexpected that some other form of dictatorship takes hold to maintain order or that the current civil war turns from a war against the government to a civil war among various factions making up the rebels.
Yet, the big issue in this effort to take down Gaddafi is not what will happen, as there is apparently little concern among the major players of NATO (the United States, Britain, France, etc.) with regard to concern for the Libyan people. NATO's goal was to topple Gaddafi; and in that, it has or soon will succeed.
The big issue is what has become the role of NATO. Intended as a joint defense pact against the now non-existent Communist bloc, NATO has now become a military alliance to either impose its will upon other nations or, as it would no doubt define itself, to do the right thing.
NATO's role in toppling Muammar Gaddafi begs the long-contemplated question: Does the end justify the means? A pretext of humanitarianism and defense became an excuse to create and support a civil war.
As stated earlier, few would support Gaddafi's continued rule. And even that few would be able to find any moral justification for such support.
But if the end justifies the means in Libya, then is there any limit to where such means can be used? Is there an end or limit to NATO's and its western members' force?
--AH
While there are few people outside his family and inner circle and whatever supporters he might have in Libya and elsewhere (Hugo Chavez comes to mind) who would support a continuation of Gaddafi's rule, one has to wonder about the manner in which his dictatorship is being concluded.
As part of the Arab spring, which turned into Arab summer and is likely to become Arab fall and winter in some countries both Middle Eastern and elsewhere as more and more people rise up against governmental forces with which they disagree, a mostly disorganized group of protesters in the eastern parts of Libya managed to catch the attention of western nations long interested in toppling the Gaddafi regime. When Gaddafi sought to put down what at the time appeared to be a minor rebellion, western nations seized upon these circumstances to convince the United Nations to pass a resolution calling for a no-fly zone and humanitarian aid including defense of citizens.
The United States and its NATO allies quickly took out both Libya's air defense and strike capabilities. This was quickly followed by NATO's own flights to strike at Gaddafi's forces striking back against the rebel forces. Apparently, the no-fly zone only meant that Libyans could not fly; it was okay for other countries to fly at will across the country's borders.
And recently it appears that no-fly also meant no-float, as NATO forces began attacking and sinking ships reportedly carrying troops loyal to the existing Libyan government. Early reports indicated that some of such troops were actually in retreat, but later reports took a more pro-NATO stance that the troops were really repositioning themselves to continuance battling the rebels.
And what of the rebels? Well, they were no longer as disorganized as once they appeared. By now, they had been trained and instructed by NATO advisors, as well as provided with weapons to combat the government.
And what of NATO's defense of civilians? It had now become an all-out effort to lead the rebels to victory, taking the offensive against any pro-government facility with air attacks.
Thus, what theoretically began as humanitarian assistance morphed into essentially a war against Gaddafi. And what began as a rebel protest morphed into a civil war morphed into a NATO-led coalition to destroy the Libyan government.
Regardless of the current contradictory media reports, it appears clear that Gaddafi's days are numbered if not already ended. What will result in Libya and for the Libyan people remains to be seen. Unfortunately, it would not be unexpected that some other form of dictatorship takes hold to maintain order or that the current civil war turns from a war against the government to a civil war among various factions making up the rebels.
Yet, the big issue in this effort to take down Gaddafi is not what will happen, as there is apparently little concern among the major players of NATO (the United States, Britain, France, etc.) with regard to concern for the Libyan people. NATO's goal was to topple Gaddafi; and in that, it has or soon will succeed.
The big issue is what has become the role of NATO. Intended as a joint defense pact against the now non-existent Communist bloc, NATO has now become a military alliance to either impose its will upon other nations or, as it would no doubt define itself, to do the right thing.
NATO's role in toppling Muammar Gaddafi begs the long-contemplated question: Does the end justify the means? A pretext of humanitarianism and defense became an excuse to create and support a civil war.
As stated earlier, few would support Gaddafi's continued rule. And even that few would be able to find any moral justification for such support.
But if the end justifies the means in Libya, then is there any limit to where such means can be used? Is there an end or limit to NATO's and its western members' force?
--AH
No comments:
Post a Comment