Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

The report, the product of a parliamentary equivalent of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, closely echoes the criticisms widely made of Tony Blair’s intervention in Iraq, and may yet come to be as damaging to Cameron’s foreign policy legacy.

It concurs with Barack Obama’s assessment that the intervention was “a shitshow”, and repeats the US president’s claim that France and Britain lost interest in Libya after Gaddafi was overthrown. The findings are also likely to be seized on by Donald Trump, who has tried to undermine Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy credentials by repeatedly condemning her handling of the Libyan intervention in 2011, when she was US secretary of state.

Cameron, who stood down as an MP on Monday, has refused to give evidence to the select committee. In one of his few reflections on his major military intervention, he blamed the Libyan people for failing to take their chance of democracy.

The result of the French, British and US intervention, the report finds, “was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Isil [Islamic State] in north Africa”.

It adds: “Through his decision-making in the national security council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

The report cites Obama’s disappointment that the UK and France did not exercise leadership on stabilisation and reconstruction. In an interview with the Atlantic published in March this year, Obama said: “I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”

He added that Cameron stopped paying attention and became “distracted by a range of other things”. The report says it is difficult to disagree with Obama’s assessment, given in the interview, that the war was “a shitshow”.

The report says: “We have seen no evidence that the UK government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight, and that it was caught up in events as they developed.

“It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

The report cites academics who said the UK “spent just under half as much (48.72%) on rebuild than on intervention”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...amning-verdict-on-camerons-libya-intervention

Intervene if old

 

[Funky Papa]

For all the shit America and the UK get over Libya, France should get a ton more than it actually gets.

 

[jelly]

They all fancied a little bombing run and easy glory with the least amount of effort then expected a glorious democratic utopia to pop up and spread. What a disaster.

 

[Hazzuh]

British foreign policy since at least Iraq has been a series of unambiguous failures. Both action and inaction have ended in disaster. It seems like the British government lack the ability to correctly plan and execute a military invasion and lack both the geopolitical understanding and the political will to build a stable post-war settlement.

 

[G.ZZZ]

France was the biggest proponent of that war, many says because it was envious of Italy 's trade agreements with Libya. The results? Just another shit show in the middle East like every other western intervention there, but it' s like people never remember and each time buy into the rethoric of the military industry of "freeing" oppressed people when they are the first cause of instability of that region in the first place. Western people are trash.

 

[sohois]

I find it strange to see so much criticism of the Libya conflict, as it seems like the counterfactual would have been just as terrible. Syria is right there as an example.

 

[sflufan]

One of the most ill-conceived, poorly-executed military operations I have ever witnessed.

The UK and France effectively had no idea what they were doing and not enough military assets to do it which meant they had to come hat in hand to Obama to bail them out, something that he REALLY didn't want to be involved in to begun with.

And Libya is sooo much better off without Khaddafy/Qaddafi/Ghaddafi/pick one of the 127 ways to transliterate his name, right?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Fantastic job. Spread terrorism so we can drop bombs. Then you must make new bombs to replace them. PROFIT. :/

 

[Branduil]

And Libya is sooo much better off without Khaddafy/Qaddafi/Ghaddafi/pick one of the 127 ways to transliterate his name, right?

I hear Syria's doing great these days.

 

[Gallbaro]

Fantastic job. Spread terrorism so we can drop bombs. Then you must make new bombs to replace them. PROFIT. :/

You forgot the part where they ran out of bombs.

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

Stuff like this reaffirms my belief that the west should not involve themselves with the middle east.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

France was the biggest proponent of that war, many says because it was envious of Italy 's trade agreements with Libya. The results? Just another shit show in the middle East like every other western intervention there, but it' s like people never remember and each time buy into the rethoric of the military industry of "freeing" oppressed people when they are the first cause of instability of that region in the first place. Western people are trash.

Thanks mate.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Stuff like this reaffirms my belief that the west should not involve themselves with the middle east.

We can see in Syria what happens then, local powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia take over.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Stuff like this reaffirms my belief that the west should not involve themselves with the middle east.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. The mistake here was doing it but half-assing it along the way.

However, if there was a potential massacre on our doorstep (which Libya is by the way) and European powers were seen doing nothing then we'd have gotten shit for that too.

 

[Ashes]

Resigned for the betterment of the party in Parliament my arse.

 

[TimmmV]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. The mistake here was doing it but half-assing it along the way.

However, if there was a potential massacre on our doorstep (which Libya is by the way) and European powers were seen doing nothing then we'd have gotten shit for that too.

It was obvious it was going to be half-arsed from the beginning though, which is probably even worse than doing nothing

 

[CyclopsRock]

I find it strange to see so much criticism of the Libya conflict, as it seems like the counterfactual would have been just as terrible. Syria is right there as an example.

Yeah, that's how I feel. Under Gaddafi the blood might not have been on our hands, but it's blood nontheless.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. The mistake here was doing it but half-assing it along the way.

However, if there was a potential massacre on our doorstep (which Libya is by the way) and European powers were seen doing nothing then we'd have gotten shit for that too.

No. You're wrong.


There is a reason why there is no invasion of all the countries in the world that commit human rights violations, kills protesters, puts reporters in jail and encompasses the worst scum of the earth. And that very good reason is that anyone with a semblance of common knolwedge knows what the cost will be if you launch an invasion to stop the atrocities.



NOBODY, has had a problem with tolerating Assad, Gadaffi, Saddam or anyone else, as long as they played fiddle in a beneficial arrangement. These guys are not new players. They had consistently done horrific mass murdering for decades. But dictators keep a level of control and peace in a region, and it is understood by international law- That if you go in and remove- Say Mugabe, Duterte or Ergodan or Kim-Jong, what will happen, is what has happened in Iraq, Libya and Syria. A lot more people will die, and the aftermath will create a ripple effect in surrounding regions and countries that spreads the seed of extremism and fundamentalist groups which will create a chain reaction of misery for generations.
No power came with billions to be used for humanitarian aid for Iraqi, Syria or Libya. No western powers were allocated to save or displace many of the refugees running from war.



What is under scrutiny here is reactive and counter-productive military intervention. It's not a "damned if you do / damned if you don't situation". This is not a Rwanda or Kosovo situation, where you're stopping a genocidal wiping out of an entire population.

What you're seeing is tribal societies engaging in civil wars, which many many civilized countries today have been through along with many revolutions to eventually bring them peace. It is not up to western powers to insert themselves into these feuds- But to help from the outside.
There is a ton of ways they could use the billions used for weapons, bombs and vehicles and defense technology, that would have helped the civilians.
Or diplomacy, through sanctions that causes a rift and a divide within a country. In the context of the Iran deal- It happened on the backbone of a people who desperately wanted to join the international society. The sanctions were working, and it has created a massive debate Iran along with a desire to want to bring Iran out as a first world nation.
If you choose to invade someone, the casualties are on you, but if you are not accountable to anyone, it is easy to see the deaths as disposeable whatevers who fall because "war is terrible, but it is what it is". A life in the middle east isn't worth much in the eyes of the west. That's just the damn truth. We're removed from the actions of our governments and the responsibility we carry. It's our tax dollars that goes into bombing these people into submission, and nobody should find that acceptable or dismiss it as a "damn if you do, damned if you don't".

 

[G.ZZZ]

No. You're wrong.


There is a reason why there is no invasion of all the countries in the world that commit human rights violations, kills protesters, puts reporters in jail and encompasses the worst scum of the earth. And that very good reason is that anyone with a semblance of common knolwedge knows what the cost will be if you launch an invasion to stop the atrocities.



NOBODY, has had a problem with tolerating Assad, Gadaffi, Saddam or anyone else, as long as they played fiddle in a beneficial arrangement. These guys are not new players. They had consistently done horrific mass murdering for decades. But dictators keep a level of control and peace in a region, and it is understood by international law- That if you go in and remove- Say Mugabe, Duterte or Ergodan or Kim-Jong, what will happen, is what has happened in Iraq, Libya and Syria. A lot more people will die, and the aftermath will create a ripple effect in surrounding regions and countries that spreads the seed of extremism and fundamentalist groups which will create a chain reaction of misery for generations.
No power came with billions to be used for humanitarian aid for Iraqi, Syria or Libya. No western powers were allocated to save or displace many of the refugees running from war.



What is under scrutiny here is reactive and counter-productive military intervention. It's not a "damned if you do / damned if you don't situation". This is not a Rwanda or Kosovo situation, where you're stopping a genocidal wiping out of an entire population.

What you're seeing is tribal societies engaging in civil wars, which many many civilized countries today have been through along with many revolutions to eventually bring them peace. It is not up to western powers to insert themselves into these feuds- But to help from the outside.
There is a ton of ways they could use the billions used for weapons, bombs and vehicles and defense technology, that would have helped the civilians.
Or diplomacy, through sanctions that causes a rift and a divide within a country. In the context of the Iran deal- It happened on the backbone of a people who desperately wanted to join the international society. The sanctions were working, and it has created a massive debate Iran along with a desire to want to bring Iran out as a first world nation.
If you choose to invade someone, the casualties are on you, but if you are not accountable to anyone, it is easy to see the deaths as disposeable whatevers who fall because "war is terrible, but it is what it is". A life in the middle east isn't worth much in the eyes of the west. That's just the damn truth. We're removed from the actions of our governments and the responsibility we carry. It's our tax dollars that goes into bombing these people into submission, and nobody should find that acceptable or dismiss it as a "damn if you do, damned if you don't".

Thank you. Bunch of warmongering war apologists in the thread. Disgusting to the core.

 

[Xe4]

I find it strange to see so much criticism of the Libya conflict, as it seems like the counterfactual would have been just as terrible. Syria is right there as an example.

Yep. People loose their shit over Lybia, but honestly, put yourself in the posion of president or PM. What would you do? Leave it alone? Congrats, either thousands of innocents get slaughtered by the government or you have a new Syria. Intervene lightly, like countries did? You now have modern Lybia. Intervene more after the country overthrows the president? You now have a situation akin to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's shit all around, and I think this was the best option, shitty as it may be.

 

[CyclopsRock]

We're removed from the actions of our governments and the responsibility we carry. It's our tax dollars that goes into bombing these people into submission, and nobody should find that acceptable or dismiss it as a "damn if you do, damned if you don't".

Most of what you've said is true, but this doesn't fundamentally change the fact that this power struggle will almost always happen when the tyrant falls, no matter how that comes about. So the question then becomes "what are we waiting for?" The answer, in a lot of cases, is that "we don't want to deal with the aftermath". The aftermath of a DPRK fall and reunification with the south would be horrific for the region, and it's the poor cunts in North Korea who have to pay with their lives and happiness to maintain the status quo. This is the most obvious answer, but it's clearly not the case that as long as we just leave it alone then that's the best option. Yeah, it's the best option for us. So IMO it is a case, here, of damned if you do, damned if you don't, because all you're doing is bringing forth something that's going to happen anyway, and I don't think there's any reason to think that, when it does happen, it'll be any less bloody. Syria is, as has been pointed out, a decent counter-factual because that became a warzone largely from internal pressures, not external. The hope is that, out of the ashes, comes a society that can actually change (which will only happen when one side "wins"). But I don't think leaving them to a brutal dictator rather than initiate the war is a morally righteous position to take. They're both shit, but that's the nature of brutal dictators, I guess.

 

[noshten]

The main thing with interventions is that there is no long term plan, whether it's the US or NATO. When you go in and remove a regime you need long term planning and long term investment. If the international community or the US wants to play World Police - they need to have a 20 year plan with investments/humanitarian aid/education/infrastructure projects with certain strings attached. When you are unwilling to go in for the long haul, you are pretty much turning the population into your enemies long term. So in most cases this types of ill-advised regime changes leave a power vacuum and with enough instability in the region there is no guarantees that the party coming to power won't be worse than the previous dictator.
If you are going to remove someone from power, it's natural if it's a dictator to also need to change the way the country is run. In most cases nations under this type of rule are unprepared in many ways to simply adopt democracy - because a lot of the intellectuals needed to run the country are either indoctrinated in the previous regime, there is rampant corruption that they think is natural or they were simply removed by the prior regime so it's easier to control the populace.
Without the necessary intelligence you are also going to find it mighty difficult to actually figure out what agenda everyone has. There is external factors like other regional powers having different goals for the region and investing into their own projects to usurp power for someone convenient to them.

So basically whenever we run into a "shitshow" like Libya it becomes increasingly obvious that the lack of intelligence and lack of planning is dooming any attempts for the international community to actually solve problems.

 

[Palette Swap]

For all the shit America and the UK get over Libya, France should get a ton more than it actually gets.

Yeah. France played a pivotal role in this shitshow. It's even more embarrassing when you consider one year before that, Sarkozy was very chummy with Gadaffi.
There's still this ongoing investigation about claims Sarkozy financed his 2007 campaign with Libyan money.

 

[tomtom94]

For a man who spent most of his time as PM demanding that people take responsibility, Cameron sure isn't any fucking good at it.

 

[Abounder]

Apparently bombing people is what gives western leaders a good laugh :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U

RIP to the thousands killed due to warmongers, shame that voters want to bomb people

 

[Poodlestrike]

For a man who spent most of his time as PM demanding that people take responsibility, Cameron sure isn't any fucking good at it.

This is my big takeaway. It's funny (not hah-hah funny) how much this guy's whole approach pivoted around "people taking responsibility," with the various referendums and his bizarre expectations about Libya, and then when the going got tough he got GOING. So damn fast.

re: the interevention as a whole, I don't buy the ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding it; this was a classic well-intentioned international fuckup. They thought they could go in, smash the bad guys (and Gaddafi was unambiguously a bad guy, let's not fuck around about that), and leave. That's not how it works. You don't depose the strongman and then expect his long-oppressed people will know what the hell they're doing. A humanitarian intervention, if it's going to be successful, has got to be a long-term project. You wanna spread democracy, be prepared to spend a whole lotta time and money making it happen.

 

[4Tran]

Thank you. Bunch of warmongering war apologists in the thread. Disgusting to the core.

Not only did the intervention work out horribly, it also undermined the sovereignty of the nation-state and simultaneously poisoned the West's relations with China and Russia in the UNSC. Remember that China and Russia abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973 to allow it to go through to begin with, and they're going to outright veto anything that even smells like it in the future. Libya is going to go down as one of the most ill-conceived military interventions ever, with none of the players getting anything close to what they wanted out of it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Apparently bombing people is what gives western leaders a good laugh :




RIP to the thousands killed due to warmongers, shame that voters want to bomb people

Such a weird image. All the "before US intervention" photos show the same building (Dhat Al Imad in Tripoli) which is still entirely functional and existing.

 

[Abounder]

Such a weird image. All the "before US intervention" photos show the same building (Dhat Al Imad in Tripoli) which is still entirely functional and existing.

Sure but the point shows how callous our leaders (especially warmongering Hillary) and voters are when it comes to bombing people, I'm sure you can google other before/after pics of our airstrikes. Even Obama calls Libya the 'worst mistake' of his presidency.

 

[Coriolanus]

Such a weird image. All the "before US intervention" photos show the same building (Dhat Al Imad in Tripoli) which is still entirely functional and existing.

Indeed. That "we came we saw he died" phrase, with the following smile and laugh, is such a horrendously bizarre, downright psychotic thing to say that it is more than enough by itself.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

All of this can be pinpointed to Sarkozy. I don't understand why Cameron followed on his personal crusade. He was never after "peace and human rights in Libya", he just wanted to kill Gaddafi so that he can't damage him.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Sure but the point shows how callous our leaders (especially warmongering Hillary) and voters are when it comes to bombing people, I'm sure you can google other before/after pics of our airstrikes. Even Obama calls Libya the 'worst mistake' of his presidency.

Sure, it just tends to work better when it shows the same building before and then after its destruction, as opposed to just some random buildings.

 

[Giant Panda]

The execution was bad, but I find it crazy that people think nothing should have been done. There's a good chance it would have ether become another Syria, or Gaddafi would have murdered tons of people to stop that.

 

[Abounder]

Sure, it just tends to work better when it shows the same building before and then after its destruction, as opposed to just some random buildings.

It would be technically better so I'll edit it with this one instead:

Indeed. That "we came we saw he died" phrase, with the following smile and laugh, is such a horrendously bizarre, downright psychotic thing to say that it is more than enough by itself.

Indeed

 

[Quixzlizx]

Sure, it just tends to work better when it shows the same building before and then after its destruction, as opposed to just some random buildings.

It works fine as is, because most people don't actually know anything and will assume the before and after pictures are from the same scene and swallow it up.

 

[Abounder]

It works fine as is, because most people don't actually know anything and will assume the before and after pictures are from the same scene and swallow it up.

Not to mention there's a video link, it was really more about how shitty our leadership/foreign policy is especially Hillary's.

 

[Coriolanus]

The execution was bad, but I find it crazy that people think nothing should have been done. There's a good chance it would have ether become another Syria, or Gaddafi would have murdered tons of people to stop that.

Oh, he most likely would. But then, that came (and continues to come) anyway. The country has been at war for nearly five years now. Then you factor all the positive stuff he did and... it gets complicated.

 

[BigDug13]

British foreign policy since at least Iraq has been a series of unambiguous failures. Both action and inaction have ended in disaster. It seems like the British government lack the ability to correctly plan and execute a military invasion and lack both the geopolitical understanding and the political will to build a stable post-war settlement.

When you say their foreign policy since Iraq, are you talking about when Britain created Iraq after WWI?

 

[MisterFalcon]

British foreign policy since at least Iraq has been a series of unambiguous failures. Both action and inaction have ended in disaster. It seems like the British government lack the ability to correctly plan and execute a military invasion and lack both the geopolitical understanding and the political will to build a stable post-war settlement.

I'd say that building a stable post-war country is pretty much impossible in the Middle East and Central Asia in the 21st century. Too many people are working too hard at making sure <insert clan or sect here> does not end up running the country. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq where the presence of massive military forces and spending more then the Marshall Plan has achieved nothing of note.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd say that building a stable post-war country is pretty much impossible in the Middle East and Central Asia in the 21st century. Too many people are working too hard at making sure <insert clan or sect here> does not end up running the country. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq where the presence of massive military forces and spending more then the Marshall Plan has achieved nothing of note.

It achieved quite a lot, it just largely evaporated after that massive military force left. The post-WW2 occupations in post-Fascist Europe and Japan lasted far longer (Japan is probably a more useful comparison in many ways, all things considered).

 

[Randomizer]

Can't help but laugh when people still think the West intervene for the benefit of a country's inhabitants. For helping 'liberate' the country, the British and French demanded the majority of contracts and share of Libyan oil. But because of their own eagerness and stupidity their oil companies ended up losing hundreds of millions instead.