Libya Is Not Iraq

Reuters reports that the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has stated that the involvement in Libya will not turn into Iraq style conflict.

This despite the fact that Richard Dannatt, former head of the British army, has noted parallels with the campaign in Iraq.

Hague is quoted:

"It's very different from Iraq because of course in the case of Iraq there were very large numbers of ground forces deployed from Western nations.

That's clearly not the case and it's not going to be the case in Libya. It's right to point to the need for a political process when Gaddafi goes, and that of course is something we discuss with the National Transitional Council in Libya.

They have put forward their plans for that, for an interim government including figures from the regime, for the holding of elections and those are the right plans to put forward."

That's all very well, maybe. However, it may well take a lot more resources/military commitment to remove Gaddafi than are already in "play" there.

Arming The Libyan Rebels

Arming the Libyan "rebels" may be all very well (in theory) whilst Gaddafi is there to unite them against him. However, if he is removed, they will simply fracture along tribal and religious lines and use the weapons against each other and any Western troops placed on the ground as peacekeepers.

The Coalition of The Unwilling

It would appear that we are now up to our eyes in yet another war in the Middle East, being waged by a coalition of the unwilling, which has no strategic goal nor by defintion means of detrmining when it is over.

Libya - Iraq II?

The enthusiasm for regime change in Libya displayed by the USA, UK and UN may well sound very "noble" when esposed by skilled political oratators.

However, if the UN succeeds in throwing Gaddafi out, who exactly is lined up to replace him and how long will troops be expected to be stationed there whilst "democracy" and a political infrastruture is installed?

Have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan?