Time To Get Out Of Libya

We await the Libyan recognition of anything that might happen to declare itself the Transitional National Council of the United Kingdom, though preferably not a body of Islamist insurgents such as we have recognised in Libya. Meanwhile, over in The Daily Express, Neil Clark writes:

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach, the great sage Aldous Huxley once wrote.

It’s hard to think of a more appropriate judgment on Britain’s military involvement in Libya. After the disastrous invasion of Iraq – a war based on dodgy dossiers and misinformation which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, you would have thought that the British Government would have done all it could to keep our country out of any more unnecessary Middle East military conflicts, especially as the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing.

Indeed when David Cameron became PM last year many people hoped that he would make a clean break with the foreign policy of New Labour and its enthusiasm for sending Britain’s armed forces around the globe to act as world policemen. But he has cruelly disappointed by taking us into yet another ill-thought-out military adventure. When the NATO military action against Colonel Gaddafi’s regime started in March we were told that it would be over quickly because the Libyan dictator was “isolated” and had very little public support. But we’re now heading into August and Gaddafi is still very much in power.

It’s a huge understatement to say that the war has not gone according to plan. After the NATO action began on March 19, with the stated aim of protecting civilians from Gaddafi’s forces, the line from Britain, France and the US was uncompromising: there could be no negotiations with the Libyan regime and that Gaddafi had to step down. And when Libya’s leader was indicted by the International Criminal Court in late June for crimes against humanity, Foreign Secretary William Hague declared: “The warrants demonstrate why Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy and why he should go immediately.”

But in the past few weeks the line has changed again. Last week French foreign minister Alain Juppé declared that “one of the scenarios being envisaged” was that Gaddafi would be allowed to stay in Libya, provided he “steps aside from Libyan political life”. Now Britain has softened its position too, with the Government saying that what happens to Gaddafi is “ultimately a question for the Libyans to decide”. And while it was the Libyan government that was calling for negotiations earlier in the summer, it’s now the NATO powers who are contemplating a deal which would keep Gaddafi in Libya, with talk of him being sent to the Hague to stand trial quietly dropped.

How has it all gone so wrong? It’s clear that in their rush to commit to military action the NATO powers greatly overestimated the strength of anti-government forces and underestimated the public support that Gaddafi still had. The Libyan rebels were promoted as the genuine voice of the Libyan people. But the reality is that away from their strongholds in the east of the country the rebels do not have enough support to take over the whole county without the deployment of a sizable number of NATO ground troops, something which is simply not going to happen.

Gaddafi may be a ruthless dictator with a record of supporting acts of terrorism in the Seventies and Eighties but he has brought his country stability during his 42-year rule and living standards have risen for the majority. His secular rule has also been supported by those who fear a hard-line Islamist takeover of power. There have been huge pro-Gaddafi demonstrations in Libya this summer, showing that many Libyans still prefer him to the rebels. The opposition, moreover, are not a united group – in fact the only thing which brings them together is their hatred of Gaddafi’s government.

Alongside those who genuinely wish to see a more democratic Libya there are others with more extremist agendas. Former CIA officer Brian Fairchild has claimed that the anti- Gaddafi revolt is “rife with projihad sentiment”, while one of the Libyan rebel commanders has admitted that his forces have links to Al Qaeda. Neither are the rebels whiter than white when it comes to human rights.

“Opposition forces say they are committed to human rights but the looting, arson and abuse of civilians in captured towns are worrying,” says Joe Stork, of Human Rights Watch.

“This raises concerns about how civilians will be treated if rebels capture other towns where the government has support.”

And of course there’s the enormous financial cost of our involvement in Libya’s civil war to consider. If military operations continue until September it is estimated that the cost to the taxpayer will be more than £1billion – far more than the “tens of millions of pounds” Chancellor George Osborne predicted when the NATO action began. And all this at a time when the Government tells us that because of the poor state of public finances we need to cut spending and freeze public-sector pay.

If you’re in a hole, as the NATO powers are in Libya, the best thing is to stop digging. Although it might be unpalatable for some there is no more sensible option for the Government now but to end British involvement in this foolhardy venture and allow the African Union to broker a peace deal between the Libyan government and the rebels.

And the lesson must be learnt by David Cameron that Britain must take part in no more costly military adventures which do not affect our national interest or our national security.