Yesterday, the French and British forces broadened the campaign in Libya by striking not only at military targets, or even the Command and Control targets that it had targeted before, but at Infrastructure targets throughout Libya. This came at the same time as Liam Fox declared that Britain was prepared to continue the military action until the removal of Gaddafi, even if that conclusion was still months away.
Liam Fox interestingly mentioned that not only the UK, but the entire international coalition was prepared to pursue this course of action. This of course goes against the trend with NATO members. The US, at least officially, has been stepping down its military contribution for the last two months. One of the few minor partners, Norway, has stated that it would be removing its jets from the air campaign.
These trilateral strikes (Italy have been the only other commitment to increase, rather than decrease their commitment), have struck deep at the heart of Libyan Infrastructure, both economic and governmental. Yesterday, explosions were heard at oil facilities across the East of Libya. Today, two government departments were hit, both the departments of security services, and of anti corruption.
These attacks are at best, misguided. Whilst they will may seem to make a contribution to the rebel cause, even that goal will probably not be achieved. For instance, Libya under Gaddafi has not sold oil on the international market since the start of the conflict. He has, according to most sources, easily enough stored bullion and resources to last even the most protracted war. Instead, it will only serve to denigrate the country to the country if the rebels do inherit it. What is the point of fighting a battle for freedom and democracy, if you only then have the freedom to starve in poverty?
The strikes on government buildings are only a little better thought out. While the benefits are bigger – one is a security building, and as such, probably involved in repression, the losses still outweigh it. Such strikes, far away from the UN mandate, threaten the perceptions and support of NATO's contribution, both in Eastern Libya and abroad.
NATO cannot afford to look like a colonial aggressor. While any direct action in the conflict contravenes the will of the UN, it can get away with it, if it appears that it is the liberator. Any action that threatens the people of Libya themselves only serves to drive them towards Gaddafi and prolong the war. They also serve to drive other countries away from helping in the Arab Spring. This is only compounded by the travesty of French and British forces recently let hundreds of refugees drown to death. Are these the actions of a Liberator or a Conqueror?
