So, was this actually thought through? I mean, did the governments involve actually think about this beyond the whole “GodDAMN are we going to rake in the positive PR from enacting this!” before voting it in to existence?
Sure, it’s easy to say that it’s a great thing to do, and it’s not like any rational human being is cheering FOR Libyan Air Force jets bombing the shit out of anyone who speaks unkindly of Muammar Ghaddafi/Gadafi/Qadaffi/However the fuck he’s spelling his name today. But there are a LOT of unanswered questions here.
1. Who’s footing the bill? Or did everyone forget that flying jets around off of stationed aircraft carriers costs a considerable chunk of money? Now, I’m by no means saying that we should consider budgetary restraint before human life…but has this been figured out? Or is this going to be a ridiculous farce where, after spending 15 or so years whining about American involvement throughout the world, France and others are now totally A #1 with the US staging flights off of a carrier group which the US is expected to pay 100% of the costs for?
2. If it isn’t a carrier group, then I suppose we’re seizing Libyan territory with runways (and unless this is a purely US show, this has to be the plan). So now ground forces are also involved, not just aircraft. What are their rules of engagement? How many are going to be stationed there for how long to maintain a security perimeter? What if refugees decide that it’d probably be a good idea to try to cross that perimeter where it’s safe…who is now responsible for their safety and well being, not to mention their needs for food and water and shelter? How is that being taken care of? Doesn’t that potentially represent more than just a little bit of a change in the operational mandate of the forces we’re sending there? Doesn’t it possibly make full bore combat ops by ground forces a lot more likely as the Libyans try to get through the cordon to get at the ones running from them?
3. Who is actually involved? This is a bit of a ‘okay, now put your money where your mouth is’ question. Again, the French…they were gung ho for this, so are they actually going to lift a finger? Shouldn’t they kind of HAVE TO contribute something more than a “Go team!” attitude? Same goes for the Lebanese, who also pushed this hard…what are they bringing to the table?
4. What if this escalates? Let’s say that the Libyans stop bombing rebels and start attacking them with ground forces…is there then a No Tank Zone? Exactly how far are we prepared to go with this thing? Will we putting troops on the ground in an active combat role? Are we going to go after Libyan naval vessels, too? What about troop transports…are those targets? Where exactly is the line, and what are the contingencies for when that line inevitably changes?
5. Why the enormous double standard here? What does it say when the West is eager to step in to stop the Libyan rebels from being blown apart, and yet apparently signs off on the exact same thing happening in Bahrain? Or is that deemed ‘acceptable’ because our ‘good buddies’ the Saudis have gotten involved militarily to try to prevent a neighbour’s majority Shi’i populace from taking control of the country? We attack the Libyans when they massacre protesters and rebel factions, but we simply issue ‘stern warnings’ against the Bahrainis under the exact same circumstances, and completely ignore the fact that the Saudi military has executed most of the violence there. What message does this send beyond “We are Saudi Arabia’s bitch”? Doesn’t this create a very dangerous set of optics that the West is totally ready to dive in…unless it’s those damn Shi’ites getting slaughtered?
6. What about other nations similarly violently attacking protesters in the future? After all, the precedent has now essentially been set that the Western world won’t stand for this sort of thing (you know, unless it’s the Saudis). So, are we expected to become involved if something similar happens in Algeria? Syria? Lebanon? And if we don’t (or, due to too many involvements elsewhere, can’t), what sort of a message of very public hypocrisy does THAT send?
7. What happens if the very real possibility of civil warfare between the various rebel factions becomes a reality? Are we then picking a side amongst Libya’s historically divided tribal system? Or do we just bail then, even though the chances of extreme civilian casualties actually INCREASES in this event?
8. The tag line to all of this is that we want to hep democracy and freedom for the people flourish in the region. And if it turns out that these rebels aren’t any more democratic than G/Gh/Qaddaffi…what then? What if their only real reason for rising up is that they want to be the autocratic dictators making all of the rules? What if they turn out to be the sort of extremist fire breathers we don’t exactly like, the sort with all sorts of ‘colourful’ ideas when it comes to women in society, and education, and the West in general? Do we pull out if it turns out these guys are not the wonderful bastions of democratic freedoms that we thought they were?
Look, I’m all for stopping a madman (and let’s face it, when you possess Muammar’s fashion sense, you’re pretty clearly a madman) from slaughtering his own population in a desperate bid to cling to power. But there are A LOT of questions here that haven’t even been addressed, much less answered. Shouldn’t we kind of figure some of this stuff out NOW, rather than potentially having to deal with it all on the fly 3 months, or 6 months, or a year down the road?
The most dangerous aspect of all of this is the absolute double standard between reactions to the situations in Libya and Bahrain. The disturbing part is that the Gulf states (which includes Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. All 3 are heavily involved with smashing Bahraini protests) all signed off on the Libyan operation. Perhaps they realize that with the West tied down in Libya, they basically get free rein to do whatever the Hell they want to in their own neck of the woods. It sure as Hell does create the idea that it’s a bit of a tit for tat, that the West gets to act in Libya in exchange for ignoring what’s going on elsewhere. Gee, do you think things like that might result in just a little bit of blowback down the line?
If we’re going to do this, fine…but we have to do it ACROSS THE BOARD. And we have to have it planned beforehand.
