Deepening Resentment

Daniel Hannan writes:

Why us? I mean, why not Ecuador or Finland? Where is the specific British interest in Libya?

On balance, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but there was at least a case to be made that it was our responsibility. Iraq had been a British protectorate, London was the home of the exiled opposition, Saddam threatened our interests and allies in the Gulf and we had intervened militarily on six previous occasions. But what have we got to do with Libya?

I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who favour aerial intervention: they genuinely want to save civilians from a brutal regime. This, though, is an argument for intervening in dozens of places, from Chechnya to Zimbabwe. Finding a use for those wretched wastes of money, the Eurofighter Typhoons, is not sufficient justification.

As I blogged a couple of days ago, there have been three moments in my lifetime when, under all the norms of international relations, a case could have been made for military intervention against the Tripoli regime: the murder of Yvonne Fletcher; the Lockerbie atrocity; and the revelation that Gaddafi had been supplying arms to the IRA. As far as I can remember, there was almost no demand for an armed strike on any of those occasions; indeed, Margaret Thatcher came in for a great deal of criticism for allowing US bombers to fly from RAF bases in retaliation for Libyan state terrorism. Yet many of the same people who criticised her are now beating their chests and demanding action. Have we reached the point where military action is thought to be justified only when there isn’t any national interest at stake?

A no-fly zone might, as its supporters say, lead to a speedy settlement and so save lives. I hope they’re right, believe me. Equally, though, it could expand the conflict, deepening resentment against the West and drawing in fighters from elsewhere in the region, as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even in a best case scenario, it is hard to explain why state oppression triggers military retaliation in Libya but not in, say, Bahrain.

We have been rushed into a policy for which the country is unprepared and for which, I suspect, there is little public enthusiasm. Military action of any kind, as the Prayer Book says of matrimony “is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God”. Until this morning, Libya was not our responsibility; now, their problems are ours.