- The vulnerable people of Libya are protected by Nato airstrikes, but not the vulnerable people of, say, Syria.
- Nato countries agreed to airstrikes in order to protect the people of Libya, but, without explanation, rhetoric and efforts soon shifted to ousting Gaddafi.
- The poverty-striken Libyan people have acquired sufficient arms to mount a ground offensive against Gaddafi's presumably well-equipped military.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
I don't usually go for conspiracy theories
I've only been keeping half an eye on the news lately, but it seems to me that things just aren't adding up in Libya. I don't want world leaders to tell me the whole truth and nothing but the truth - I've seen enough of West Wing to know that political maneuvering is complex and that sometimes spin is for the greater good. What I do expect is that the official line will vaguely approximate the truth. Here's what I'm seeing:
Posts
4 comments:
Well, for a start, Libya is in Europe's back yard; Syria is not. Europe led the push to get involved.
Second, the RAF, for example, were flying Typhoons out of Italian airbases. Libya is within the 1,400 km combat radius of those aircraft, Syria is not.
Third, there was a functioning resistance in Libya, which had some success even without air strikes: that meant air strikes supporting them would actually be beneficial, in terms of quicker victory with fewer civilian casualties.
And how did the "poverty-stricken Libyan people acquire sufficient arms to mount a ground offensive against Gaddafi's presumably well-equipped military"? Because large sections of Gaddafi's army joined them, of course. Burning alive soldiers who wouldn't fire on unarmed protesters only increased the defections.
Thanks Anon - that makes a bit more sense of it all. I was aware that it could be a little presumptuous of me to write this post as I haven't exactly been following the conflict closely ;). Do you have any thoughts about the - I think unexplained - change in the purpose of the Nato mission?
I'm not sure that there HAS been a change in the purpose of the NATO mission. The original UN resolution called for a ceasefire, but it was very soon clear that "protecting civilians and civilian-populated areas" essentially meant helping the rebels.
Newspapers also report that Qatar supplied anti-tank weapons to the Libyan rebels, which would also have greatly helped them.
Post a Comment