Walkom: The Libyan war that should not have been
May 26, 2011
Thomas Walkom
The Wests war against Libya has overstepped its bounds. It was billed as a military action aimed at protecting civilians. But it has evolved into a bombing campaign that threatens the very civilians it claims to support.
NATO warplanes now routinely bomb the capital, Tripoli. This weeks blitz has been the heaviest yet. While technically avoiding attacks on the countrys civilian infrastructure, NATO is gradually expanding the definition of what it calls military command-and-control centres to include any building that supporters of dictator Moammar Gadhafi might use.
At least one prominent NATO general, British defence chief David Richards, wants the alliance to go further and start bombing installations such as bridges and electric power stations.
In the U.S., President Barack Obama has already broken a domestic law that requires him to receive Congressional authority for any military action lasting longer than 60 days.
In Canada, according to a report from the Ottawa Citizen, the defence department has quietly ordered 1,300 more laser-guided bombs at an estimated cost of $100,000 each for the Libyan campaign.
Internationally, Russia has accused NATO of going beyond the mandate given it in March by the United Nations Security Council.
The Pan-African Parliament, the legislative arm of the African Union, has condemned what it calls NATOs military aggression and decried the alliances targeted assassination attempts against Gadhafi.
As the war drags on, Canadian politicians who were initially so eager to authorize this countrys participation in the war now just dont talk about it.
The Wests problems in Libya are twofold.
First, war isnt easy. When NATO decided to attack Libya, it assumed that the isolated and unpopular Gadhafi regime would quickly collapse. Obamas administration promised the conflict would take days, not weeks.
That was nine weeks ago.
Hawks blame NATO for being too cautious. They say the alliance should wage all-out war as the U.S. did in Iraq if it wants a quick victory.
The other possible explanation for Gadhafis resilience, however, is that he may not be as unpopular as we think and that, inside Libya, the so-called rebels may not be universally regarded as saints.
Indeed, it is possible that some ordinary Libyans may not appreciate NATOs decision to bomb them into democracy.
The Wests second problem is that this was a bad idea to begin with. Gadhafi is not a nice man (although we were all happy to do business with him until March). Should he win, he will almost certainly jail or execute his opponents as they would him if the reverse occurred.
But, rhetoric aside, there is no credible evidence that he was contemplating the kind of Rwanda-style ethnic cleansing that the UN resolution was designed to counter.
This is a not a trivial distinction. If the UN authorized military action against every country whose government acted thuggishly, the world would be in a state of constant war with North Korea, with Saudi Arabia, with Syria, with Russia and (depending on how one views torture) with the U.S. itself.
Instead, and for no particularly good reason, we are at war with Libya. We invaded that country not because Gadhafi is unusually monstrous but because we thought he would be an easy mark.
The French and British wanted war for domestic political reasons; the U.S. hoped to get on the front end of the Arab Revolt.
Everybody wanted a piece of Libyas oil wealth but without having to endure Gadhafis feckless and arbitrary demands.
And Canada? Our reasons were the most craven. We wanted to show we were big shots.
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.
