Libya - 27th March 2011

I have had quite a few emails critical of the fact that we have embarked on a Libyan campaign without a clear exit strategy notwithstanding the lessons we ought to have learned from our Iraq adventure. 

I accept that we cannot know with any certainty what the outcome will be in Libya, but I do not believe that this is necessarily an argument for inaction. There will always be huge uncertainties in our personal lives and in our national life, but that is no reason for remaining frozen like a rabbit dazzled in the headlights of an on-coming car.  

We take our decisions on the balance of probabilities and possibilities. I voted for quite explicitly limited military action in Libya despite -the uncertainty of the outcome- because I could be absolutely certain of the ghastly consequences of inaction.

Had we not acted we can be sure that the slaughter in Benghazi would have been dreadful. Gaddafi was precise in stating that his forces would go from house to house and from room to room showing neither pity nor mercy. He has form so we should take him at his word. He was, after all, responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity on our soil.

There are still, of course, those who argue that this is just none of our business. I am not sure that there is an argument that will sufficiently address this. It comes down not to argument but to a fundamental difference of values.  I just hope that there is a majority of us who feel that it is our place to intervene where we reasonably can to protect innocent lives, because this is the very heart of the relatively novel United Nations doctrine of the ‘right to protect’ and the campaign in Libya is the first example of its application under UN authority.

Addendum -17 April 2011

I have had many emails expressing concern about the way that NATO’s main effort in Libya is perceived as having subtly moved from the protection of civilians to the removal of the Gaddafi regime. I disagree with this analysis. The UN resolution which authorises our actions in Libya states that all necessary means may be used to protect civilians. To my mind the removal of the regime was always an implied task if it is clear that it is indeed necessary to protect civilians. With Gaddafi’s brutal assault on the people of Misurata including the use of cluster munitions I think that this conclusion is ever more obvious. I know that many constituents are frustrated by open ended nature of the Libyan operation. My view has not changed since I wrote in this column on 31st March stating that the humanitarian disaster would have been much greater had we not intervened and that the damage to our long term national interest of a resurgent Gaddafi would be enormous.