NATO bombing of Libya has been going on for almost half the year now. To say that the outcome is any more certain than it was in March is a lie. If anything it is now much, much less certain.
Today there was a story on BBC about rural buildings that were bombed by NATO. The BBC interviewed a schoolgirl who had been injured in the bombing. Gadhafi's government claims that 85 civilians died. I believe they are exaggerating.
NATO claims they are sure it was a military target. I am sure they are lying through their teeth. The truth is they don't know what they bombed. They don't have men on the ground and apparently they rely on the rebels for much of their target selection intelligence.
The rebels are mostly untrained civilians. It is certain that their intelligence will be unreliable, based on wrong or incompetent analysis and sometimes plain malice. For example getting NATO to bomb their house could be a very cool way of getting back at the family of that girl who embarrassed me by rejecting my hand in marriage. This is conjecture on my part but there is no denying that family and tribal alliances play a very significant role in which side one supports or opposes in African conflicts, and perceived social slights play a large part in forging those enmities and alliances.
I have also seen an article suggesting that occupation by another Arab country could be the face saving way out of this quagmire for NATO. Why do we have this conflict anyway? The people of Libya supposedly want a democracy with free and fair elections. Since when did foreign occupation and democracy become bosom buddies?
NATO seem to be keeping on bombing Libya because they don't know what else to do. Since they have the bombs, the aircraft and the missiles, they will just keep lobbing them until they can think of another way to end this.
The truth is that if NATO wanted to spare the people of Libya the uncertainty, tribulation and fear of living in a war situation, they don't even have to think. All they have to do is take one of the options already on the table, a ceasefire followed by elections within a time limit.
Can Gadhafi be trusted? Of course not. But taking a chance with negotiated solution is much much better than bombing the Libyan people and their infrastructure - not Gadhafi - until Gadhafi gives in to what has evolved to be a mere battle of wills. And all this because of Sarkozy's inexperience and naivete as an international political leader.
The bottom line is that the ongoing NATO bombing and destruction of Libya is nothing but gratuitous. It may, hopefully, eventually get Gadhafi to depart but to any thinking person a negotiated exit, which Gadhafi has already agreed to, is a much more certain and much less destructive way of getting the same result that NATO are claiming can only be gotten through raining fire and brimstone upon Libya's harpless people.
If the negotiations had started in March or even April we could be talking about an election in Libya by the end of the year. Right now we are talking about maybe a foreign occupation without a timeline for an election. If you call that progress then I will call what comes out of a horse's behind chocolate.
The best way to put an end to the suffering of the Libyan people right now is an immediate ceasefire and commencement of negotiations. Did I hear someone say the rebels won't agree to that? Rebels my foot. Without NATO bombs there would be no rebels. Those guys cannot organise a shooting contest in an armoury. They have been held up by NATO policies, definitely not their own competence. They will do what they are told to do by NATO.
Ceasefire and Negotiations for Libya!
No comments:
Post a Comment