Liberal Interventionalism

Now there’s an oxymoron. An oxymoron Andrew Rawnsley toys with over at CiF. In the wake of Gaddaffi’s resurgence against the ragtag rebel army that opposes him, Rawnsley voices the concerns of Western leaders; what to do?

Are we content to let Colonel Gaddafi win? This is the question that neither western countries nor their leaders have wanted to confront. This is the question that now stares us hard in the face.

What is going on in Libya is a civil war fought by two or more factions inside the borders of a sovereign nation. Therefore the answer is simple; it is none of our business and we should not intervene. Yes, it may be brutal and bloody, but it is none of our business. We are not Libyan and we have no place fighting their internal conflict for them. Yes, maybe Gaddaffi will triumph. Maybe he will be toppled and maybe whoever replaces him will be as bad, if not worse, but that is Libya’s problem, not ours. If we intervene and help to topple him, whoever does replace Gadddafi will be tainted as a puppet of the West. We have no place being involved and we should not be involved, it is none of our business, just as our internal affairs are no business of the Libyan leadership or the UN or NATO or anyone else, for that matter.

You would have thought by now that politicians would have learned from earlier forays into the Middle East, but no. Yet one wise man once said:

“We cannot drop democracy from 10,000 feet and we shouldn’t try.”

He was right then. Those words are right now. Will he heed them? Horribly, I doubt it.

10 Comments

  1. Who is this ‘we’ Mr Cameron? Are you yourself going to lead the troops in Libya? Are you going to pilot aircraft in a no-fly zone faced by Sam missiles? No …. thought not.

    And this ‘democracy’ you speak of Mr Cameron? Have you asked the people of the UK if they wish to be involved in another conflict? No … thought not.

  2. Sorry I respectfully disagree with you on this. I think it’s my business and yours and everyone’s in a country with the military power to do something about lunatics like this killing their own people.

  3. Then we disagree. Libya is a sovereign nation – and that includes its airspace. What goes on inside its borders is no concern of anyone else. Or do we get involved in every civil war that erupts around the world? Who elected us as global policemen? And what right has a politician to risk the lives of our service personnel on yet another excursion where we have no business being. Our defence is for just that; defence. Gaddafi is a nasty piece of work, but there are plenty of nasty dictators dotted around the globe. Where does it end?

  4. “our internal affairs are no business of the Libyan leadership or the UN or NATO or…”

    OR THE EU.

    I’ll say it for you.

  5. “Then we disagree.”

    Fair enough, let me at least attempt to convince you.

    “Libya is a sovereign nation – and that includes its airspace.”

    What does that even mean, a sovereign nation, that’s some concept of ‘international law’ is it?

    Would you not want another country to help us if our government suddenly started using the police to murder protesters or political dissidents in the way Gadaffi is? (I’d consider both you and I in the latter category)

    “What goes on inside its borders is no concern of anyone else.”

    You could certainly argue so. I however would argue the opposite. We’re human beings, the people in Libya are human beings. A murderous insane arsehole is killing vast swathes of the people there. That _is_ our concern or damn well should be. It concerns me anyway…

    “Or do we get involved in every civil war that erupts around the world?”

    Certainly not, though I would argue this is far from a typical civil war. This is not a despot vs a warlord, or two warlords, or whatever, this is the vast majority of the people of Libya rising up against a murderous insane bastard who has deprived them of freedom for as long as I’ve been on this planet, and is now trying to kill them as quickly as possible before the rest of the world grows a pair.

    If a ‘civil war’ has one side which is obviously as evil as satans cock smeg and one side which is not then yes, we should help the better side. Whether with arms, training or active military help.

    “Who elected us as global policemen?”

    I’d say Russia and China by their actions and inactions.

    “And what right has a politician to risk the lives of our service personnel on yet another excursion where we have no business being. Our defence is for just that; defence.”

    Gadaffi has damaged this country in the past, what is to say he won’t again, it’s far more likely than Saddam ever being a threat to us.

    Your contention that ‘we have no business being there’ is a major caveat in that statement, you seem to be saying ‘if we did have business being there’ then Politicians would absolutely have the right to do so. I’d argue that they do have the right to send our forces into battle wherever they deem appropriate. We elected them to make those difficult decisions. The people in our armed forces know what they are getting into when they sign up, some of them won’t make it home. Yes it’s sad, please don’t think I don’t care. I’m trying to think of the greater good. (Spock)

    I can’t think that you would argue (like most of the media imply) that British lives are worth more than any foreigners lives?

    “Gaddafi is a nasty piece of work, but there are plenty of nasty dictators dotted around the globe. Where does it end?”

    When each one of them is vapourized at the bottom of a small crater. I certainly wouldn’t stop until Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinajad and Mugabe were nothing but stains on humanities memory. Plus a few more I don’t have the time or inclination to think of right now…

    I don’t suppose that convinced you, forgive me for trying, I so rarely disagree with you! 😉

  6. Well, we can’t agree on everything, and to be fair, I agree with much of what you say above. I simply stop short of intervening in the internal affairs of another nation. Of course I don’t believe that British service personnel’s lives are worth ore or less than those of the rebels in Libya. However, I do not expect them to be expended in anything other than defence of our nation. That is their purpose.

    As for Gaddafi being a threat, not difference to what has happened in the past. if he cause us harm, we deal with it. And, frankly, it is possible – probable even – that whoever replaces him will be no less a threat.

    Your contention that ‘we have no business being there’ is a major caveat in that statement, you seem to be saying ‘if we did have business being there’ then Politicians would absolutely have the right to do so.

    I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying we have no business being there, nothing more, nothing less. As for politicians sending troops into battle, yes, of course we delegate that decision to them and hope that they use it wisely. So far, this has been a series of disappointments as we watch them engaging in various hotspots around the world for no good reason.

    Yes, Gaddafi is slaughtering his own. So has Mugabe, but I didn’t see an international outcry and demands to go in on behalf of the slaughtered Zimbabweans – yes, I know it’s a tu quoqe – but a relevant one. We cannot and should not go about instigating regime change or even taking sides in an internal revolution. It really is none of our business. Much as I’d like to see these bastards vapourized as much as you do. The only people who have the moral right to do this are the people they are oppressing. Which is why I have no time for calls to put Gaddaffi before an international court. The only people who should be meting out justice here are the Libyan people under Libyan law.

    As to your initial question – no, I wouldn’t want another country to intervene if our government was doing the same. It would be our fight and for us to finish. I’d want foreign governments to keep their noses out of our affairs.

Comments are closed.