Libya: An unedifying muddle for a country at war
Ala
By Telegraph View 7:51PM GMT 21 Mar 2011
475 Comments
When British forces are put in harm's way, as RAF pilots are in the skies
over Libya, they are entitled to expect absolute clarity about the purpose
of their mission. We ask them to risk their lives for us: they are entitled
to know why. Regrettably, no such clarity has accompanied the early stages
of the action to uphold UN Resolution 1973.
On Sunday, Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said that targeting Gaddafi
personally "would potentially be a possibility" under the terms of the UN
resolution. When the same question was put to General Sir David Richards,
the Chief of the Defence Staff, yesterday, he replied: "Absolutely not. It
is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to
discuss any further." At the best of times, it would be alarming to see the
political head of the Ministry of Defence publicly at odds with the military
head. At a time of conflict, it is unforgivable. Matters quickly went from
bad to worse as No 10 briefed that Sir David was "wrong" - not the message
you want to hear about your military commander when we are at war.
Admittedly, events have been moving quickly. As David Cameron told the
Commons yesterday, it had been a "race against time to avoid the slaughter
of civilians in Benghazi". Even so, that cannot excuse such discordancy.
Both the minister and the general must have been sitting around the same
table, listening to the same briefing on the legality and implications of
the UN resolution. How could they possibly emerge with such contrasting
analyses?
In his statement in the House, the Prime Minister sought to inject some much
needed coherence. He said that the purpose of the military intervention was
to "enforce the will of the UN" in two specific ways - by suppressing Libyan
air defences and establishing a no-fly zone; and by protecting civilians
from attack. As for targeting Gaddafi, he said that the UN resolution was
limited in its scope and "explicitly does not provide legal authority for
action to bring about Gaddafi's removal from power by military means". That
is clear enough, but Mr Cameron then added the rather ambivalent
qualification that it was for the Libyan people to determine their
government and their destiny, but that the Government's view was clear -
"there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in
power". In other words, Gaddafi must be removed, even if the UN resolution
does not authorise it. And nor could it have, for Resolution 1973 would
never have been adopted if it had done so because both Russia and China
would have used their vetoes rather than simply abstaining.
This is an unedifying muddle. And the uncertainty does not end there. There
are also misgivings over whether we can afford yet another military
conflict, both in terms of its financial cost and the demands it will make
on the nation's already over-stretched military resources. Four years ago,
when we were engaged in operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the
military was stretched to the limit, and was ultimately obliged to beat an
ignominious retreat from Basra. Yesterday, Mr Cameron insisted the campaign
in Afghanistan would not be affected by our involvement in Libya. Given the
depletions caused by the Strategic Defence and Security Review, such
assurances are not wholly convincing. If our involvement in Libya turns out
to be more protracted and intense than is currently envisaged, it could
indeed undermine our Afghan strategy.