James Spencer on his blog, Bridge Ward News, makes a good point regarding our involvement in Libya. It’s not as if the oil was at risk under Gaddafi. Brother Leader Bliar saw to that:
We were told that the reason for intervention was to prevent a massacre in Benghazi. The Mad Dog of North Africa would probably have launched an assault on Libya’s eastern capital to repel an uprising but it may well be that the number of people killed in the civil war which followed NATO’s intervention is greater than would have been killed in a Gaddifi assault on Benghazi.
Now, I detest Gaddafi as much as the next man and the fact this vulgar barbaric leader is no longer in power is pleasing. But the removal or killing of Gaddafi was not the mandate given by UN resolution 1973 for the UK and NATO military action in Libya. It was to prevent civilian deaths. Frankly, that has not exactly been achieved. So, why exactly are we involved in a civil war in Libya?
The rebels are hardly holier-than-thou. They are a fragmented bunch with different tribes, who don’t exactly all get on like one big happy family. One of the rebel generals was recently murdered in suspicious circumstances amidst allegations he was killed by his fellow rebels.
And I don’t think we are going to see justice served on the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, or the Libyan diplomat, who murdered WPC Fletcher in 1984 by shooting her from inside the Libyan embassy in London, any time soon. The rebels have already indicated that no Libyan will be extradited.
Life in Libya for civilians, in Tripoli at least (where most of the foreign journalists are based) is pretty grim at the moment. No water, no electricity, food and medical supplies running low or non-existent in some areas. Wasn’t the UN resolution meant to protect civilians?