Advertisement

News

Desert fog

All who desperately wanted air backup for the anti-Gaddafi rebels should get ready for serious mood swings. Our forces are taking on a mission over desert sands, the upshot of which no one can foretell, with an elastic mandate and the potential for a trail of civilian casualties.

It’s a time, I think, to be forgiving of those who can’t get a clear sense of how they feel about those cruise missiles streaking through the Libyan ether. A perusal of key North American commentators reveals that the dovish community is stunningly split on its no-fly zone assessments.

Some hail the display of air muscle as the long-awaited arrival of a doctrine prioritizing humanitarian intervention. In our country, the obligation to protect hovers in the national consciousness with the ghosts of Darfur and Rwanda and helps explains why the otherwise non-militarist NDP voted this week to send CF-18s, albeit with strong conditions attached.

But all progressive supporters of this effort are angst-ridden. On Friday, I talked to the Canadian Arab Federation’s Mohamed El Rashidy, who said that while his org is “very wary of foreign intervention,” it could not ignore the civilian crisis that would unfold if Benghazi falls.

“Sometimes grave situations leave you with two bad choices,” he said, “and you have to choose the lesser evil. I think a no-fly zone with expanded operations is a lesser evil.”

Then again, on Monday, the Canadian Peace Alliance issued it’s statement: “Far from being a shining light in a humanitarian crisis, Western intervention is designed to maintain the status quo and will, in fact, make matters worse for the people there.”

The complexity of all this, beyond tribal factionalism in Libya, is the fact that this rebellion is not a textbook people’s uprising. That was clear the minute demonstrators cracked open the arsenals and put themselves under the command of defecting officers. How a pro-democracy movement morphed into a military op will be the subject of future decoding. Let’s just say these aren’t the greatest conditions for the construction of a citizen-shaped society.

Still, thousands of people are at risk – and you had only to hear a despondent Benghazi resident on CBC Radio last week as Gaddafi’s army circled the city, talking about his struggle to keep his children from panicking, to get the point.

But while reporters dog North American pols about the goals of the mission, it’s evident that no one has a clear sense of the trajectory of all this. We should remind ourselves that the U.S. foresaw nothing of the killing field Iraq became when it invaded. As the ground fight continues, the U.S. has declared its part of the mission over and is gamely trying to manoeuvre NATO – or someone – to take over the command chair.

It’s unlikely to be an Arab nation. Not that many hands clean enough to lead a NGZ democracy campaign. Saudi Arabia is too busy helping Bahrain bust up the freedom movement in Pearl Square. Yemen and Syria are killing their own activists, thank you. Maybe post-revolution Egypt or Turkey, but they aren’t budging.

So the West’s in the pilot seat yet again. It’s easy to be charmed by the speed with which oppressed people turn revolutionary, but the nimbleness of strategic realignment these days feeds only cynicism. In 2009, the U.S. and Libya signed a defence cooperation and security-sharing pact opening the way for military sales. One deal for armoured troop carriers floundered just months before the uprising. Imagine if….

That same year, Canada and Libya signed a memorandum of intent on nuclear power, including uranium processing. All just a reminder that foreign policy is sadly a self-interested calibration, not the reflection of a global commitment to social goals.

Every time I hear about a coalition attack on Tripoli targets, I hold my breath. Precision strikes? Tell that to drone-terrified villagers in northwest Pakistan. Canadian Major-General Tom Lawson said the other night that the Libyan situation was so “fluid” there’s potential for hitting the wrong target. “To be clear,” he stressed, “we will aim for no collateral damage.”

On Tuesday, March 22, it was reported that Canadian planes had already cut short a sortie because of civilian risk. Military analysts like Stratfor’s George Friedman have been warning that moving military targets and the need for hair-trigger responses could inflict substantial civilian casualties.

And yet, if Gaddafi packs his bags for Venezuela tomorrow and the Benghazi daddy gets to take a holiday with his shaken kids, the air power spectacle will have served. Somehow I’m a doubter.

I would say put your hands together and let them wring.

ellie@nowtoronto.com

Advertisement

Exclusive content and events straight to your inbox

Subscribe to our Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By signing up, I agree to receive emails from Now Toronto and to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.