posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 04:10 AM
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I think 'The West's' hands were forced here and they are very much in a no win situation; they were damned if they got involved and damned if they
Gadaffi had become a relatively liberal leader and Libyan's enjoyed a relatively high standard of living.
He had long ceased being the funder of international terrorism and had relatively good relations with 'The West' who had starting investing heavily
in the internal infrastructure of the country and obviously have major interests in it's oil industry.
A lot of Europeans and Americans etc worked in Libya.
Groups within Libya got carried along with the 'Arab Spring' thus spurring other anti-Gadaffi elements into action and so the rebel alliance was
'The West' had previously given assurances that it would support pro-democracy movements and could not be seen to be turning it's back on the
However, they also had no desire to see the mutually beneficial relationship with Gadaffi damaged.
And probably most importantly for them they had to protect their oil interests.
Quite a difficult scenario with no easy solution.
This has led to a nothing policy which publicly supports The Rebels with half-arsed supportive air strikes which do relatively little real damaging
effect on Gadaffi.
They know that if or when Gadaffi falls there is going to be a power vacuum and there are numerous groups who will make a bid for control thus
possibly sparking another bloody civil war.
This would be in no-one's interests.
And I really think that 'The West' doesn't know what the best course of action is and as a result we have the current policy of fence sitting,
indecision and non-committal contradictions.
Iraq has been a particularly hard lesson for all concerned which no-one wants to see a repeat of....I really don't envy the policy makers on this
occassion as there are certainly no easy answers.