The inevitable war on the Colonel Gaddafi regime in Libya is under way, with an international coalition military offensive backed by the United Nations. What was billed as an enforcement of a no-fly zone, as agreed at the UN, now involves a massive bombardment of Libyan targets. To all intents and purposes, this is war.
It is war because they have described it as such on the BBC (approx 23:20 on 20/3/11) and also the British populist press (link) are outrageously commentating on it like a war game.
Not that the Libyan regime is the first to ruthlessly suppress proletarian uprisings, but as usual we pick and choose our conflicts. There is usually a direct correlation between natural resources and western involvement. Lucky for Bob Mugabe that Zimbabwe is mainly agricultural.
My position has softened since my initial standpoint of not getting involved in Libyan affairs at all, but I still have reservations about sending our servicemen and women to another war zone.
My key reservation is that it is unclear how many Libyans really support this action. The protests against Gaddafi's regime have been clearly seen on the news. However those who have been to football matches where violence breaks out on the streets are well aware that reporters do not take their cameras to the quiet streets, only where the action is. So how representative is what is on the screen?
There is no disputing the crowds are present, for they have been witnessed in action on the television. Much depends on how many of the quiet majority support them. This is the unquantifiable. I would guess they have a sizable support, but it would be only a guess. Military interventions are never an exact science in terms of what the right thing is to do, which is why mistakes have been made in the past, notably in Iraq.
The best we can do now is back our forces and hope their work provides hope for the future of Libya. My more realistic concern is that this conflict could escalate, with bloody consequences.
