Referees of Civil War

Very quickly, I’d like to bring up, in the context of America’s soon to be intervention in Libya, the fact that we still don’t know what we would be fighting for save the broad ideal of democracy. Barack Obama drew a line in the sand, saying that our goal would not extend beyond the protection of civilians, but are the U.S. and its allies then acting as referees in a game of civil war? And if they are, are they going to be impartial?

Of course not. Quaddafi must go; he is persona non grata throughout most of the world. How, then, does mission creep not occur if the rebels are on the verge of losing?

Liberate Libya? At What Cost?

Underreported in the Libyan crisis is a characteristic of the thawar, or revolutionaries, that puts human rights advocates — along with advocates of intervention — in something of a bind: the minimum age for the thawar draft is only only 15. Hard numbers are difficult to come by, but regardless of the percentage of the rebel army that is under the age of 18, any international intervention would be aiding a force that conscripts child soldiers.

Aiding pro-democracy forces is an admirable idea, but how to we reconcile the fact that such support implicitly supports the use of child soldiers? I suppose that imposing a no-fly zone would be the least detestable option. But how much of a difference would that actually make if the rebel forces remain poorly-trained and poorly-armed. During the conflict in Bosnia, the no-fly zone and arms ban imposed by NATO kept the Bosnian military from securing adequate weapons with which to fight Serbian forces. The same could be expected to occur in Libya. But if the West were to arm the Libyan rebels, they would literally be placing guns in the hands of child soldiers.