A Libyan rebel fighter runs up a burning stairwell during an
effort to dislodge some ensconced government loyalist troops
who were firing on them from an upstairs room during
house-to-house fighting on Tripoli Street in downtown Misrata.
The same day he took this photo, Chris Hondros died
during the fighting in Misrata.
The Libyan War has been an interesting international affair to follow, to say the least. There were so many different layers that combined at once. There was the so-called "Arab Spring," the military intervention, a dictator who had completely lost all sense or reality and sanity, the possible massacre of citizens, the a popular rebellion where citizens built their weapons out of whatever they could find, the lack of clear American leadership, the lack of overwhelming European military strength, and finally a rebel's victory that didn't end in house-to-house fighting in Tripoli. I look forward to reading future books using this war as a case study. Every side will have something to say. Every side in international relations will pick and choose which facts they will research in order to justify their political slants and predispositions, from the realists to the neo-liberals to the neo-marxists.
As the NATO-led military intervention started to bomb the Libyan military in order to stop a most-likely bloody attack on Benghazi, I read my former St Andrews professors decry any form of military intervention. Oddly, they mocked the United States for losing a fighter jet and mourned the death of Libyan soldiers who had driven tanks, even though these professors had said nothing beforehand about the Libyan citizens Qaddafi's military had killed. It seemed as though everyone in the Peace Studies community disapproved of NATO for its 'neo-colonial' actions, even though the Arab League had asked for the intervention. There was a black-and-white notion that dropping bombs on tanks moving towards Benghazi was the same as dropping bombs onto civilians. If the Arab League and NATO had followed the Peace Studies' advice, thousands upon thousands of Libyan citizens would have died. For me, these criticisms reminded me of everything I disliked most about Peace Studies.
What would the Peace Studies scholars have us do? Were there any viable alternatives for Libya when Qaddafi's tanks were on the outskirts of Benghazi? Most certainly, it would have been nice if before the war even began, perhaps several years ago, there had been an ongoing peace process that would have created a government that listened to the people. But once the bullets started killing civilians, it was too late for that type of slow, difficult peace process and nation building. Foreign governments needed to make decisions within hours that would have consequences immediately, even if that decision was to do nothing. I wholeheartedly reject the idea that peace workshops where each side sat together in a room and discussed their demands, hatreds, fears, and hopes for the future would have had any benefit when Qaddafi was fueling his jets and tanks for another offensive. If anything, these types of peace process workshops would have been a stall tactic for one side or the other as they prepared for another offensive. I am unconvinced that any peace workshop can have any significant impact on a society as long as a shooting war exists. Even Peace Studies' greatest achievement through workshops, a partial contribution to the Oslo Peace Accords, was ultimately a failure. I'll admit that stopping a war isn't enough to ensure a just peace, but stopping the shooting is a little bit more than just important.
Yes, I had multiple problems with the Libyan intervention. As a realist, I do not like the notion of using military action for humanitarian missions when there is no strategic objective. The United States was already in two wars with our personnel and resources spread across the globe, and I was concerned about a possible 'mission creep' that would suck our blood and treasure into another country's civil war. I was happy to see the British and French take the largest brunt of the air campaign, even if the United States provided a large number of cruise missiles in the beginning phase of the war. The war was in Europe's strategic interest, and France should have been afraid of a lingering civil war in the southern Mediterranean. At first I was concerned that once military action started that NATO wouldn't have made decisive moves the end the war quickly. I believe that a limited war will likely lead to more deaths and misery than a swift and decisive war. In particular, I was worried that the rebels wouldn't have proper arms, training, and guidance in order to overrun Qaddafi's military. Thankfully, the French gave the rebels fresh arms. Also, there were reports that Special Op personnel with British accents were training and leading the rebels. Most importantly, Tripoli fell swiftly without a bitter last stand. Overall, the military intervention went as well as it could have gone, considering that war is an inherently messy affair. Now the bigger problem will be building a government to replace Qaddafi. Now would be a good time to have peace workshops so that the local community can have more ownership in their government and society. It's up to the Libyans to build their own country and take responsibility for its success or failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment