The Temptation to Intervene

Published in La Nacion
(Chile ) on 4 March 2011
by Raul Sohr (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Patricia Simoni. Edited by Alexander Anderson.
Repetition does not make it any less true: We know how to start wars, but we do not know how to end them.

The political and military crisis in Libya differs from the crises of its neighbors, Egypt and Tunisia. In those countries, the struggle for better living conditions and democratic freedom encompassed vast sectors of society. Their rulers were deposed by waves of mass protests.

In the case of Libya, fatigue is also a factor after more than four decades of dictatorship by Moammar Gadhafi. However, unlike its neighbors, there is a regional and tribal component that engenders fear of a protracted conflict, or even a civil war, in which neither side can prevail, at least in the short term.

The United States and Great Britain have taken the lead in raising the possibility of military intervention by arguing that there is a humanitarian imperative to protect those who have risen against the Libyan regime. The West recognizes the great political risk in sending troops, but at the same time, it is confident of its military supremacy in the air. Therefore, it is discussing the idea of imposing a “no-fly zone” aimed at blocking action by the Libyan air force.

The risks of such an operation are high. It will require more than shooting down planes that threaten the opposition. More than likely, it will require silencing the batteries of anti-aircraft missiles Libya possesses.

The political impact of Western warplanes over Libya and possible attacks could be enormous. In the first place, it could provoke an outburst of nationalist sentiment favoring the regime. It could also undermine the legitimacy of the opposition, which already controls much of the territory.

The bitter memories of colonial times would be painful. Even worse, the Libyan population — like the rest of the Arab world — has seen the futility and disastrous impact of intervention in Iraq by Washington and London. If the rebels are associated with foreign powers, charges of imperialism made by Gadhafi will gain credibility.

The world has seen large-scale massacres, like those that took place in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other African countries. They took place in full view of a passive international community, which did not feel compelled to intervene to save hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Libya, by contrast, is a major exporter of oil and gas.


No por mucho repetirlo deja de ser verdad: se sabe cómo empiezan las guerras, pero no se sabe cómo terminarán. La crisis política y militar libia difiere de las de sus vecinos Egipto y Túnez. En estos países la lucha por mejores condiciones de vida y libertades democráticas abarcó a vastos sectores sociales. Los gobernantes de estos dos países fueron depuestos por olas de protestas populares desde todos los rincones del territorio nacional. En el caso libio también está presente la fatiga luego de más de cuatro décadas de dictadura de Muamar Gadafi. Pero, a diferencia de sus vecinos, hay un componente regional y tribal que hace temer un conflicto prolongado. O incluso una guerra civil en la cual ninguno de los bandos es capaz de imponerse, al menos por un buen tiempo.

Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña han tomado la delantera en levantar el espectro de una intervención militar en el país árabe. Lo hacen argumentando la necesidad humanitaria de proteger a las fuerzas que se han alzado contra el régimen. Las metrópolis occidentales saben que es un gran riesgo político desembarcar tropas. Pero a la vez tiene plena confianza en que hay un plano militar en el cual son imbatibles y los riesgos mínimos: en el aire. Por ello han echado a rodar la idea de imponer una zona de “exclusión aérea”. Dicho en términos directos se trata de impedir toda operación de la fuerza aérea oficialista. Los riesgos de semejante operación son altos. No sólo será necesario derribar los aviones que desafíen la imposición. Es probable que deban silenciar las baterías de misiles antiaéreos. El impacto político de la presencia de aviones occidentales sobre los cielos de Libia y sus eventuales ataques puede ser enorme. En primer lugar pueden provocar un estallido de sentimientos nacionalistas que favorezcan al régimen. Y, en la misma medida, pueden restar legitimidad a los opositores que ya controlan buena parte del territorio. Las amargas memorias de tiempos coloniales volverán a penar. Peor aún, la población libia -como el resto del mundo árabe- ha visto la futilidad y efectos negativos de la intervención de Washington y Londres en Irak. Si los rebeldes son asociados con potencias extranjeras, las acusaciones de Gadafi relativas a las ambiciones imperiales sobre su país cobrarán fuerza.

El mundo ha visto grandes masacres como la ocurrida en Ruanda, la República Democrática del Congo y otros países africanos. Ellas ocurrieron ante la pasividad de la comunidad internacional que no se sintió compelida a intervenir para salvar cientos de miles de vidas inocentes. Libia, en cambio, es un importante exportador de petróleo y gas.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Ireland: Donald Trump Acts as Putin’s Puppet for Reasons Shrouded in Secrecy

Taiwan: AI and the Prisoner’s Dilemma: Relying on Understanding and Mutual Trust Alone

Australia: From Foes to ‘Great Friends’ in a Year — Has China’s Xi Jinping Tamed Donald Trump?

Iraq: US and Its Imagined Enemy

Canada: Europe Has To Choose: Bend the Knee to Trump, or Join Carney’s New World Order

Topics

Japan: The ICC and US-Japan: The Missing Element in the Prime Minister’s Speech

Germany: Trump’s Threat of Violence against Allies Will Be Felt for a Long Time*

Cuba: The Plague’s Address

United Arab Emirates: US vs. US

Australia: China Is No Longer Playing by American Rules as Xi Jinping Looks to His Next Term

Australia: The Reserve Bank of Australia Has No Choice but To Hike Rates as US Currency Crown Slips

Ireland: Donald Trump Acts as Putin’s Puppet for Reasons Shrouded in Secrecy

Related Articles

Chile: (Fictional) Female US Presidents We Remember

China: There Should Be No More Monroe Doctrine in the Americas

Chile : An Indicted Former President

U.K.: The Guardian View on the Other 9/11: Pinochet’s Dictatorship Casts a Lengthening Shadow

Pakistan: Killing Democracy