Friday, 25 January 2013

Should We Regret Removing Gadaffi?

Colonel Gadaffi claimed all the way through the Libyan conflict that the rebel movement he was fighting was linked to Al-Queda, a claim backed up by numerous reports that stated the same people the West were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan were the same ones we were now aiding in trying to replace the Libyan leader.
In their wisdom the International Community ignored them and became the rebels air force and arms suppliers, allowing them to take Tripoli and assassinate the Libyan dictator.
Spin forward a few years and those same rebels are using those arms we gave them against the West in Mali and Algeria and the British Government are urging Brits to get out of Libya due to specific threats against Westerners which makes you wonder was, Gadaffi right all along?   
Although the Governments of those nato countries who helped to remove Gadaffi have been trying desperately to portray his removal as positive, the unfolding story we are seeing proves it is anything but.
Murders, kidnappings, torture, the destruction of religious buildings and prosecution of minorities are being carried out by the same people our leaders were labelling as freedom fighters a short time ago.
Without the resistance offered by Gadaffi and the Libyan army, the groups have spread across Libya and are now exporting their violence to other North Africa's countries, as we have seen in Mali and Algeria recently where Westerners were targeted in the hostage taking at the gas plant close to the Libyan and Algerian border last week.
A similar pattern is emerging in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad continually tells us he is fighting terrorism and again many agencies give credence to his claim that the rebels contain strong Al Queada links, but the West are obsessed with the short term success of removing the Syrian leader and giving no thought to what will come next.
Now David Cameron is making increasing noises about taking us into another war, this time all across North Africa but we should stop and think if any of the recent places where we have intervened, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are actually better for it and are we safer due to our military action.
From where i am sitting the answer would have to be a resounding no, we have created a situation where Al Queada and its supporters can go into the power vacuum that we leave behind and car bomb, shoot and terrorise whole countries and we are threatening to do it again in Syria.
The unpalatable question is are the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and their neighbouring countries, better off without Saddam, the Taliban or Gadaffi at the helm and have our military interventions and regime changes just resulted in spreading the terrorism further around the region?    


Anonymous said...

i thought people on this blog said we did for the oil... since i can't recall and you hate it when people put words in your mouth, why did you say we did it lucy?


ps - the USA will be an oil exporter the next 10 years...

Anonymous said...

i thought it was a mistake to support the rebels but we citizens have no inside data and the public data we get is completely manipulated so applying logic rarely works... i do recall pholosophical arguments that the USA and UK should always support people that want their freedom. it seems to me you were neutral.


Lucy said...

Oil contracts were mentioned many times but my own view was to reject the 'promoting democracy and protecting Libyan civilians' excuse put forward at the time and put it down to western interests in controlling and directing pro-democracy movements in oil rich countries. The opportunity came up to control a major oil exporter and they took it.
At the time there were many reports that the rebels were unsavoury types but these were ignored and now it is coming back to us.
It is exactly the same as Syria now, we are backing the rebels while ignoring the people saying hold on, these guys are murdering, torturing and car bombing innocent civilians, as if we think they will change once we help them into power.

Anonymous said...

Lose lose situation so stay out of it


Cheezy said...

Iraq wasn't about stealing oil per se, but it was (partly) about controlling the price.