Libya: The case for a no-fly zone

By Darrell Goodliffe

Looking objectively at the situation in Libya, we can say straight away – it is not Iraq or Afghanistan. In both cases, military intervention aimed at ‘regime change’ substituted itself for the democratic movement of the people and that is why – in both cases – this was unsupportable and wrong. Far more germane comparisons exist with Kosovo more recently or, if you want to delve into our past, the Spanish Civil War. In both cases, a strong democratic movement of the people from below already existed which was fighting a brutally oppressive government.

However, in Iraq and Afghanistan no such movements existed; in the former case because we, the West, had betrayed them and in the latter all that existed was a ragtag collection of warlords and gangsters. All assertions that you can’t be against the former and for the latter are therefore rather deceitful in that they remove the key ingredient to any debate – context.

We should be agreed that a ground invasion is wrong and likely to prove ultimately counterproductive. The absolute fiasco that the government caused with its frankly inept and embarrassing attempts to make contact with the rebels via a handful of SAS members and a junior diplomat stands as proof positive of that. Nonetheless, the argument for the implementation of a no-fly zone is, I believe, overwhelming. Why?

1. It’s what the Libyan revolutionaries want. It’s absolutely true that the rebel forces have clearly indicated that don’t want ‘another Iraq’ but its completely wrong to argue their attitude is the same to a no-fly zone. At the very least we can confidently say their position on this is more complex. In the words of its own spokesperson, the transitional government has; “been very clear in saying they do want some kind of no-fly zone over their part of the country to stop Gadhaffi from taking retaliatory action against them”. It’s not just officials either:

“We don’t want a foreign military intervention, but we do want a no-fly zone,” rebel fighter Ali Suleiman said Monday. Suleiman said the rebels can take on “the rockets and the tanks, but not Gadhafi’s air force.”

2. It would leave the fight in the hands of the people. The rebel fighter makes a key point above; the aerial forces Gadhaffi has at his disposal makes this obviously an unfair fight. Of course, it allows him to bomb rebel forces and civilians but the air is also a key link in the chain of his supply line foreign mercenaries. Nothing about implementation of a no-fly zone however, restricts the ability of the Libyan people to advance their revolution. It merely alters the balance of forces in their favour.

3. Doing nothing is not an option. Sorry, but it isn’t. If Gadhaffi wins then there will be a massacre. Even if he loses there is likely to be a massacre. It’s quite clear to me that were Tripoli to be surrounded Gadhaffi would not meekly surrender. He would go down while aiming to kill as many of his opponents as possible. His aerial forces are the key to his capability to do this. So, while neutralising them is not a guarantee against such a terrible occurrence, it does diminish its possibility.

Tony Blair famously invoked the example of the Spanish Civil War to justify his invasion of Iraq. As I have pointed out above, when he did this he was making an opportunist argument that simply didn’t add-up. However, contextually, these two situations are much more alike, on the one side you have a revolutionary democratic movement, and on the other side the forces of reaction and brutal dictatorship.

‘Non-intervention’, while sounding very ‘principled’, objectively favours the latter side because of the concrete balance of forces in this situation just as it did in Spain. If Labour refuses to call for and support the action is necessary to ensure the victory of the revolution in Libya then it will be failing the Libyan people and failing the cause of democracy in the Middle East.