Writing in the Times, former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp argued that while military intervention in Libyan by NATO is being hailed as a success, it should not form the basis for the same model to be applied in other conflicts.
Examining the Libya campaign and the inital NATO-lead drive in Afghanistan in 2001, Kemp commented that while they were successful, the military option may not always be the best path to follow.
"The best form of intervention in a foreign country is non-intervention. Or, at least, intervention that is so discreet as to be almost invisible to the naked eye — funding of rebel forces, covert supply of weapons, behind-the-scenes “advice” to opposition leaders.
Even this carries risk. But the greatest risk comes from deploying conventional forces in strength. As we saw with such horrific consequences in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, however benign the intention, boots on the ground will inevitably come to be seen as occupying forces and will be attacked from all quarters."
Kemp went on to acknowledge the significance of having broad interntional support, as was in the case of Libya, which importantly gained backing from the Arab League for military intervention. In both Afghanistan and Libya, he argues that the moral justification to intervene was clear, with threats coming from both al-Qaeda and Gaddafi.
"Libyan-style “intervention-lite” provides valuable lessons for future conflict. But warfare is characterised by unpredictability; we will not see the circumstances of Libya repeated. Politicians and generals must resist the temptation to view this strategy as a model that will assure success in every conflict. That would be preparing for the last war, something we are guilty of too often.
As we have seen in Afghanistan over the past six years, decisive military success in the beginning does not guarantee a neat or favourable outcome in the end. For Libya too, perhaps the greatest danger is yet to come.
But even if the future does become messy, or the outcome is not to our liking, we were still right to intervene to prevent a massacre and help to remove a despot."
We need your support
Sri Lanka is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist. Tamil journalists are particularly at threat, with at least 41 media workers known to have been killed by the Sri Lankan state or its paramilitaries during and after the armed conflict.
Despite the risks, our team on the ground remain committed to providing detailed and accurate reporting of developments in the Tamil homeland, across the island and around the world, as well as providing expert analysis and insight from the Tamil point of view
We need your support in keeping our journalism going. Support our work today.
For more ways to donate visit https://donate.tamilguardian.com.
