The Right Way to Manage an Intervention

For 42 years, Libyans had suffered from the tyrannical potentate Muammar Gaddafi who ruled them without whatever mercy and allocated Libyas wealth to his family and himself. On Tuesday fifteenth of February 2011, Libyans started to demonstrate against the regime of Gaddafi. However, Gaddafis response to these demonstrations was horrible. He ordered his forces to vindicated fire on the protestors. harmonise to reporters from the BBC 500 to 700 great deal were killed during February 2011 by Gaddafis security forces. Libyans did not give up, though.Instead, the number of demonstrators increased day by day, especially in the city of Benghazi where the demonstrators were armed. They forced the police and the army forces to withdraw from Benghazi. For a person like Gaddafi, who ruled Libya for more than 40 years, fortitude was not an option. He was willing to eliminate the revolution against him no yield how. He ga in that locationd his army around the cities which the demonstrator s controlled and was about to commit massacres against Libyans. The linked Nations had to do something to go along the massacres Gaddafis forces were about to commit.On March 2011, the UN started an hindrance in Libya by imposing a no-fly z one everyplace Libya to prevent Gaddafis air forces from killing well-be losedians. This hinderance -which was later led by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) proved later that it was the best way to polish pip the conflicts in Libya. The three principal(prenominal) reasons behind this statement argon firstly, to value Libyans from the Gaddafis crime. Secondly, because the noise was not a direct invasion. And finally, because the intervention was make after state of wards the UN approval.The most most-valuable reason why the NATOs intervention was the best solution in the war in Libya is because Libyans needed pressing force help to stop Gaddafis forces from killing cultivatedians. If NATOs dark blue in the Mediterranean had not gossipd a no-fly zone over Libya Gaddafis air forces were about to attack civilians in Benghazi and early(a) cities. The Libyan Representative to the UN, Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, said in a press multitude on March 2011, We are expecting a real genocide in Tripoli. The airplanes are still bringing mercenaries to the airports.We are calling on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime. In other words, NATOs intervention saved thousands of lives by applying a no-fly zone over Libya. No peaceful solutions would do so, especially since Gaddafi seemed insistent on proceeding in his cover actions against his oppositions. Another reason why NATOs intervention in Libya was a model one is because it was not a direct invasion. The NATOs trading deeds in Libya were all by launching air and missile strikes against important tar cooks on Gaddafis forces.Ivo H. Daalder, the U. S. Permanent Representative to NATO, i ndicated that the NATOs operations in Libya were successful by any standard. The operations saved tens of thousands of lives from almost current massacre. These operations greatly minimized direct terms. It helped the Libyan opposition to revoke one of the worlds worst dictators. All these accomplishments were done without any wounded from the allies and with the court of only some(prenominal) billions of dollars. That was a element of that spent in previous interventions in Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq.In other words, NATO contend a huge role in ending a civil war which could stomach for many years by the least damage possible. The conclusionread of that statement is what happening in Syria today. As no military force intervened to end the bloody war in Syria, the conflicting parties put one across been killing tens of thousands of civilians for more than two years now. Political ways are not helpful in such situation. If NATO hadnt intervened in Libya, the civil war c ould not be finish till today, or at least it could cause much more victims.The third reason to occupy the NATOs intervention a successful one is because it was applied after the UN approval. The military operations were led by a group of allies, and and then these operations were led by NATO, which is still a group of allies. This gave legitimacy to the intervention and proved that the intervention was only to save the Libyan people and help them get their freedom, not for the interests of a specific country. Moreover, NATO ended their operations after the death of Gaddafi. Ending their mission is a clear proof that they were not planning to invade Libya.But they were applying the UN solution to save civilians. A report published on the United Nations official website on seventeenth of March 2011 clarified that the Security Council authorized the use of force in Libya to protect Civilians from Gaddafis forces, especially in the city of Benghazi, Acting under(a) Chapter VII of t he UN Charter, which allows to take military and nonmilitary actions to restore internationalistic peace and security. In other words, there is no proof that the NATO intervened in Libya for any kind of benefits.Even on the economical perspective, the cost of the military operations is a small fraction compared to the wealth of Libya which was stolen by Gaddafi and his family. Despite the obvious success of NATOs interventions, there are critics who cogitate that NATOs intervention was not helpful. The author of the undertake The Negative regularize of NATO Intervention in Libya shooted that the NATOs intervention that happened in Libya was not helpful. He based his thesis on three main reasons. The first one is because NATO drop Libyan people.Secondly, because NATO killed innocent people through bombing. Finally, because NATO caused internal conflicts for Libyan people. The author mentioned some good examples to prove that the intervention was not helpful. However, His essay has three unlikely arguments. The first one is that the author claimed that NATO neglected Libyans basing this claim on one example. That is considered as a hasty generalization. The second unconvincing argument is claiming that the main objective of the intervention was to trance Libya without mentioning logical read.The last weakness in the essay is the last paragraph the author claimed that NATO move Libyans to fight against each other. In the first paragraph, the author of The Negative model of NATO Intervention in Libya concluded that NATO neglected Libyans. He based this presage on the fact that a boat carrying refugees sank in the Mediterranean ocean and NATO didnt rescue the refugees. However, this example is not convincing to claim that NATO neglected Libyans because its a hasty generalization.Moreover, the author based this example on a person called JOHN-MARK IYI without mentioning his position or how he is related to the topic. On the other hand, there are a pleni tude of proofs that NATO saved Libyans. According to the BBC NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after announcing the end of their mission in Libya, NATOs military forces had prevented a massacre and saved countless lives. He also said, We created the conditions for the people of Libya to determine their own future. There is no doubt that NATO has thinned Libyans to some extent, but this damage was a fraction to the one caused by Gaddafis forces.Claiming that NATOs objective was to conquer Libya is the second unconvincing topographic point in Hijazis essay. A clear proof that NATOs operation was not to conquer Libya is that they announced the end of the mission on the thirty-first of October 2011 after the end of Gaddafis regime. If NATO had any interests in conquering Libya they would not end the military operations in Libya. Moreover, Hijazi mentioned that NATOs airstrikes killed a lot of civilians and destroyed a lot of houses without supporting his claim with clear evidence that the people killed were civilians.Especially that Gaddafis army used to hide wrong civilians houses, which makes it hard to specify whether the killed people were civilians or soldiers from Gaddafis army. In other words, the points mentioned by the author dont prove that NATO intended to conquer Libya. The last unconvincing point in Hijazis essay is claiming that NATO motivated Libyans to start a civil war. That claim is not logical for several reasons. Firstly, the war started before any foreign intervention in Libya and the main cause of this war is to overthrow the Gaddafis regime.Secondly, Hijazi didnt mention how NATO could get any benefits if a civil war started in Libya. And most importantly, Gaddafis soldiers were not Libyan which means it was not a civil war. Martin Chulov and David metalworker published an article in The Guardian website, they say, Many black Africans have been arrested and accused of fighting for dictator, but claim they were press-ga nged. In other words, its true that NATO participated in the war in Libya, but claiming that they started the war there is not convincing. To sum it all up, the war in Libya caused the death for a lot of Innocent civilians.Without the involvement of NATO, the war would be running until today, causation the death of innocents every single day. Because simply, there was no other clear, semipolitical solution would work with the insanity of Gaddafi. For sure, the intervention of NATO was not a immaculate choice. However, it was the one with least damage. Moreover, today Libya seems to heel slowly form the war it had, and fortunately it seems that the NATO intervention had no dangerous impacts on Libya. In general, its possible to say that sometimes the only way to end vehemence is to use violence.