The coalition nations which hastily launched attacks on Libya are now bickering among themselves. A wave of wrangling is sweeping across the so-called major powers that pushed for the destruction of Col Gaddafi’s country. The U.S., UK, and France are strongly divided over one issue: who is to lead the command for the destitution of Libya – an operation which has been dubbed operation “Odyssey Dawn”. But the squabbles among these nations amplify the fact that rushing to bomb Libya was neither for humanitarian purposes nor to protect civilians as the world was deceived to believe.
The United States says it will hand over command to the coalition nations, or better still, NATO, as it does not want to remain at the front line of the operations. This in itself smells of suspicion, and sounds like even the US was not convinced that bombing Libya, and overtly supporting and arming the handful of discontented individuals in the name of “rebels” to fight legitimate government forces so as to oust Gaddafi from power was the best option to resolving the situation in Libya. But because of selfish and ulterior motives, the U.S. plunged itself into what will soon turn out to be another diplomatic mess like was Iraq’s invasion.
The UK another major player in the destruction of Libya, agrees with the U.S., but also refuses to lead the operations and together with Italy agrees that the command should be handed to NATO, but France, one of the Chieftains in the war against Gaddafi, sharply objects to NATO leading the operations.
French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who is said to be using the Libyan crisis to save his skin from electoral humiliations next year, is scared that some NATO members including Germany and Turkey will hinder the operation as both countries vehemently oppose the military strikes on Libya. France is that one country in Europe which fears that its influence in the world scene is drastically diminishing, and the French at moment will hail a president who takes a leading role in issues of international significance, even if it means killing innocent civilians in Libya. Sarkozy smells this and with 2012 presidential elections just at the corner, the Libyan situation is a ripe opportunity to showcase the strength of France. Falklands did same to Margaret Thatcher.
The squabbles among these nations only bring more shame to their maneuvers that finally led to the unjustified bombing of Libya and wanting “rebels” to take over the country by overthrowing a legitimate government. The U.S., UK and France led the attacks on Libya on claims that civilians were being massacred by Gaddafi’s forces. If at all this was the case (even though it is not), these countries betrayed themselves – making it clear that their reasons for military intervention in Libya was not for civilian or humanitarian purposes; because by asking the army of a legitimate government to withdraw its forces from areas captured by illegitimate forces – the rebels – the U.S., UK, and France were calling on the rebels to fight on, advance into Tripoli, and overthrow the Libyan Leader.
These countries have already declared that they will take all “necessary measures” to push Gaddafi out of power – and these measures also mean arming rebels, bombing Gaddafi’s compound as they did on Sunday (though they claimed the compound was a military base). This gives more insight as to why the U.S., UK, and France are really in Libya.
There is more shame on the heads of these countries who have once again demonstrated that war is the best language they know – there are many other options these countries would have taken if truly they wanted to help the people of Libya. Dialogue is the best diplomacy in modern history. Where the motives are clear and honest, dialogue has always been the best form of resolving disputes – not the primitive language of war, where ultimatums are dished out to sovereign states by the so-called “big” nations – dictating to the “small” nations how to run their own affairs.
The wrangling which has gripped the U.S., UK, and France over who is to lead the command of the bombings in Libya brings one fear to the limelight: that the coalition’s mission in Libya is doom to fail, and that U.S. president Barack Obama, together with Pentagon’s Robert Gate are already sensing the flop, and would not want to get the name of the U.S. sucked in another war in another Arab country.
Not that Col Muammar Gaddafi is a saint. Far from it! The Libyan leader may have his own issues to settle with his people, but by allying with “rebels”, arming them, preventing Libyan forces to protect a legitimate government – something that every government on Earth will do, and by destroying the military might of Libya, the U.S., UK, and France are crossing the red line that any honest humanitarian intervention for peace’s sake does not have to.
Maybe after Libya, the U.S. and its friends should also drop missiles on Bahrain – were the U.S. puppet regime is openly shooting at protesters at close range, killing dozens, while hundreds others are tear-gassed and brutalized – then the U.S. and friends should provide military support to the protesters to overthrow the government in Bahrain.