Do We Know What We Are Doing in Libya?

I don’t normally talk about international politics on this blog, but events of the past week have caused me to wonder about a few things. Last Saturday evening as I was preparing my message for the next morning, I was startled to hear that Canadian warplanes had participated in attacks on Libya. My first thought was “why are we at war with Libya?”

Some might respond that we are not really at war with Libya, we are just helping a UN sanctioned international coalition establish a ‘no fly zone’ over Libya. That might be true, but I think if some country or group of countries fired several hundred cruise missiles into our territory, if fighter jets and bombers dropped bombs onto our bases and cities I think we would consider ourselves as being ‘at war.’

I do understand how this developed. The protests for democracy that had been occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa swept into Libya and Gadafi responded with his typical brutality and very shortly many people in Libya were at risk of being killed by their own countries armies. Therefore, after an emergency meeting of the UN Security council it was decided that a “No Fly Zone” would be set up to prevent Gadhafi from using planes and helicopters to shoot at protesters. Now this all sounds good (and I would be last one to want innocent protestors to be killed) but I also have serious questions about this whole enterprise.

First, how is it possible that Canada could go to war without it being debated in our parliament? Unless I missed it, I never heard the government explain to us what the issue was, what the UN wanted, and how we were going to help. And who actually okayed our participation in this mission? Did Stephen Harper okay it? Did the Cabinet okay it? Or was it done just through the Department of Defense? I am no constitutional law expert, but is it even legal for the government to make war on another country without the approval of parliament? I realize that in some cases if imminent threat or danger our military would have to act without political input but this hardly seems the case in Libya? Yes, I know it is a UN Sanctioned ‘war’ but since when does that mean we just participate without going to our own people? Again, I may not know all the fact, and maybe the Harper government met with the opposition leaders and they all agreed we needed to participate – fine – but don’t we, the people, have a right to know what our military is up to and why? It could be that this is absolutely the right decision for Canada to make. It could be that without intervention perhaps another Rwanda or Yugoslavia might have developed. But if so, why don’t they tell us that?

Second, I would like to know why Libya? What was it about Libya that made our intervention necessary? These protests have been taking place all across Africa and the Middle East, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, even Syria and Iran, and I don’t see us taking action in any of those countries. Darfur and the Sudan have been embroiled in civil war for eight years, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions made homeless and we didn’t see the need to get involved there, so what make Libya special? One person suggested that it’s because Libya is only country where government has turned army onto the protesters. I’m not sure that’s true, since I read that the Saudi Arabia military has been involved in ‘attacking’ the protesters in Bahrain. Which, if true, would be quite ironic: the West is using military force to aid protesters while Saudia Arabia is using military force (purchased almost exclusively from us) to kill protesters. I don’t want to be cynical, but I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Libya is a major oil producer? And, if we are suddenly so concerned about dictators attacking their own people, does this mean we are going to get involved in the Ivory Coast, Somalia, the Congo and countless other places caught up in civil turmoil? Earlier this week, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart took a satirical look at this issue, stating that the West responds to situations like this based on certain factors. For example, since Darfur has not strategic importance, no commercial property (oil) and isn’t controlled by an enemy of the U.S. we only offered ‘encouraging words.’ Egypt is a strategic country with assets but since it’s dictator (Mubarak) was an old ally of the U.S. we again would only offer words, (since it’s not nice to bomb a friend). But Libya is both strategic, controls oil and is an enemy of the U.S. it gets armed intervention. I sure hope that’s not how we think.

Third, do we really know what we are doing? Let’s face it, our history for getting involved in other countries civil problems and trying to make change is not all that good. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that if you get involved without fully understanding what is going on, and how to resolve the situation, you could be in for a lot of trouble. (It’s hard to imagine sometimes that the war in has gone on twice as long as World War II) Do we know what will happen on the ground in Libya if our ‘no fly zone’ is successful? Will it lead to freedom and democracy or to just a different dictator being in charge? Do we know how the various tribal factions will play into this? If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan must have taught us that if we don’t take tribalism into account we are going to be in trouble. And what is the end game? Is it to keep violence limited? (Gadhafi can use guns and bombs but not jets or tanks?) Is it to bring about regime change? Is it bring reform? Do we know why we are there? I seriously hope, that someone, somewhere in our government knows the answers to these questions.

For some good looks at what is going on in Libya:

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/intervention_libya?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/takinghumanitarianinterventionseriously