Why can't we just let the Libyans fight it out (...and then make friends with the winners)

The Daily Mail ^ | March 20, 2011 | Peter Hitchens

[Scanian]

Politics seems to have become a sort of mental illness. We have no bloody business in Libya, and no idea what we hope to achieve there.

We are daily told that we have no money to spare. We have just scrapped a large part of our Navy.

Our Army is stuck in an Afghan war whose point nobody can explain. And now we have set out on a course that could drag us into a long, gory brawl in North Africa.

And yet, when the Prime Minister announces this folly he is praised. Why? Partly it is because we all watch too much TV. Its reports simplify, then exaggerate.

Reporters, much like politicians, like to feel they are helping to make history, and get excited by subjects they knew nothing about until last Wednesday.

Before we know where we are, we are taking sides in quarrels we don’t understand. Who are the Libyan rebels? What do they want? Why do we love them so?

I’ve no idea, and nor has Mr Cameron, as we discovered when he (yes, it was him, not poor William Hague) sent the SAS to see them and they were welcomed with pitchforks and mockery.

The only sensible policy in Libya is to wait and see who wins, and then make friends with them. If you think this heartless, you are of course right. Foreign policy is heartless. Nice countries end up being conquered or going bankrupt. But it may be no more heartless than our kindly interference.

I pray that this episode ends quickly and cleanly. Perhaps it will. But we cannot know. What if our humanitarian bombs and missiles accidentally kill women and children (which is almost certain)? What if air attacks and distant shelling fail to stop Gaddafi’s forces?

[tsowellfan]

Surely Obama knows that once you start something like this with Gadaffi you're in it until the end. You don't just decide to stop bombing and it's over. You leave Gadaffi in place after starting this and civilian aircraft will start falling out of the skies. Not only will we have to deal with Al Qaeda but now thanks to this stupid move of ours renewed terrorism from North Africa.

Obama's going to have to kill Gadaffi and his sons, remove the government and it doesn’t end with killing Qaddafi. You now have to fill the vacuum (A LA IRAQ).

Good luck with that

[BelegStrongbow]

I understand your anguish. I feel it too. The man is a monster who will exert terrible reprisals.

And then I remember: Libya is a sovereign nation. To interfere with no request from anyone in the nation, whether ruler or rebel, is to violate that sovereignty and produce a precedent that, God forbid, should anything like that break out here, other nations could unilaterally intervene here also. Or anywhere. The concept of ‘nation’ would disappear.

If you argue that this result would be good, I would need to understand and agree with it. So far, I find the notion of ‘nation’ to be a two-edged sword with as much to argue against as for. Nations truly can become pits of terror when the wrong faction gains control and can generate the means to prevent power being taken from them. The concept can be diluted by having every neighborhood be a ‘nation’. The existence of San Marino and Andorra almost makes a mockery of the thought.

However, the thing is, humans don’t do well with monopolies and the one thing a large number of nations do is break up top-level control. When it is broken up, there is the chance of reform and liberty. It is a very slim chance in a pit like Libya, but it is not non-existent. We should respect that chance and we should respect Libya’s sovereignty. Unless and until one of the parties asks for our help, whether directly or via the UN, we should stay out.

Or, sadly, has that boat sailed, given what we did in the Balkans?

[Scanian]

Then they are apostates and have targets on their own backs.

Or maybe they are, as I heard one Israeli official say years ago: “They are merely ‘clever Arabs.’”

Call me a bigot-—fine. I wouldn’t trust a one of them when push came to shove.

[elhombrelibre]

Most civilian Germans we killed were killed because we didn’t have the types of precision weapons available to destroy the factories and other sinew of Hitler’s war machine. I don’t know of any historian today who believes that the air war against German civilians hastened the wars end. Hitler’s air war against England didn’t terrorize or stop the Brits. The Allied air war targeting German civilians did not win the war. The Allies and the Soviets ground down Hitler’s army and killed his soldiers. That’s how we won.

[Never on my watch]

Not all Muslims hate us.

All of the devout Muslims do.

[Sarah-bot]

Hey, if you are Muslim I don’t hold it against you. What I hold against you, if you are Muslim, is that you are doing anything to prevent radical Islam. I have know Muslims I have given to Muslims, and I have received gifts from Muslims. I would hate to see those children die, but I know that war an bombs do not discriminate. That is why I hold the parents culpable.

[armymarinemom]

I'm not full of it at all. You can't debate and slam insults without merit. You haven't done your homework. I have blood in the game for years and have been reading about the enemy for years. You can't back both sides and fight a war. Gaddafi needs to be a dead man but you can't have a snake put in his place.

[elhombrelibre]

Well, if when you write “you” you mean me and not third person plural “you,” I’ll mention that I’m a Christian.

[wiggen]

We’ve committed $20 billion to Egypt with no idea who the next government will be. Is this any different? Rest assured we will be offering the Libyan rebels aid as well with no idea who they are.

[dforest]

Perhaps you should read this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2690266/posts

[tsowellfan]

Here’s another article to consider as well...

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2011/03/14/13818.shtml

[Sarah-bot]

That is absurd. We won the air war in Europe and domination of the air has been the strategy ever since, carpet bombing. Precision bombing is important but total war is how peace is achieved.

[elhombrelibre]

The numbers don’t seem to support the idea that all devout Muslims hate us. Out of the 600 or 700 million Muslims in the world, it seems that al Qaeda represents a small number. I do agree with others who are frustrated with those Muslims who don’t hate us. I do wish there were more denunciations and attacks on Islamists. I do wish more Muslims understood and accepted pluralism and democracy. I am arguing that not all Muslims are hateful murderers.

[wita]

We’ve committed $20 billion to Egypt with no idea who the next government will be. Is this any different? Rest assured we will be offering the Libyan rebels aid as well with no idea who they are.

It appears we are in agreement.

[bigheadfred]

What if our humanitarian bombs and missiles accidentally kill women and children (which is almost certain)?

Doesn't matter if it is military or civilian. It is all murder.

[Sarah-bot]

Lady, you can back one side. Your own side. See post#1

[sport]

As long as it is a Democrat doing it, it is always the "right war at the right time." It is only when Republicans do it that the Communists and Socialists, a/k/a Democrats and main stream media have a hissy fit.

The same applies to elections, Democrats, Communists win, good. Republicans, people win, bad.

[Sarah-bot]

Doesn’t matter to me. You could be a Muslim and I would love you just the same.

[Never on my watch]

Out of the 600 or 700 million Muslims in the world, it seems that al Qaeda represents a small number.

Only a very small number of the world's population are terrorists, but an astonishingly high number of terrorists ARE Muslims (al Qaeda or otherwise).

[wita]

I am arguing that not all Muslims are hateful murderers.

I don’t think there is an argument on that particular point.

The problem is to get the non-hateful to defund, defang, defuse, and defy the hateful in word and deed. I submit they cannot do it, and thus ALL Muslims are part of the problem for now.