Comment: why NATO was right to intervene in Libya

Once the uprising was underway, violence and instability were in Libya's future regardless



Periodically, since the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi, there appears a series of articles, couched in tones from tentative to vehement, suggesting that if NATO had stayed out and allowed Qaddafi to retake the rebellious city of Benghazi in March 2011 then Libya would now be stable and would not be haemorrhaging refugees.

With the onset of the refugee crisis in Europe earlier this year, and Libya providing a major transit point for those trying to get to Europe, it was inevitable that this would happen again. But it is still mistaken: instability was coming to Libya no matter what the West did, and the main problem with the intervention was that it wasn’t early enough, forceful enough, or protracted enough.

Barbara Tasch wrote at Business Insider this week that Qaddafi was a ‘key ally who helped stem the [refugee] flow in the past’. Peter Hitchens wrote in The Mail on Sunday that the NATO intervention in Libya ‘helped cause the huge migrant wave’. These arguments echo the last oratorical refuge the Qaddafi regime sought for itself.

Faced with a popular revolution, Qaddafi had used fighter jets within a fortnight and promised a ‘house by house’ massacre of Benghazi. This raised the spectre of humanitarian intervention. Qaddafi retorted that his removal would result in chaos and jihadism in Libya and refugee waves in Europe.

“Bin Laden’s people would come to impose ransoms by land and sea [if I fall],” Qaddafi told reporters. “We will go back to the time of Redbeard”.

Grant it to the Colonel: he had a knack for rhetorical flourish.

But this neat narrative, that bad as Qaddafi was—censorship, banning opposition parties, raping his own (male) ministers as a means of control, assassination of dissidents—he at least contained the chaos and terrorism, doesn’t meet the test of evidence.

Qaddafi’s record as a source of terrorism has few rivals. Through Sabri al-Banna (better known as Abu Nidal) Qaddafi attacked numerous Western targets and assassinated any Palestinian leader willing to compromise with Israel. A French airplane was blown up in Chad by Qaddafi’s agents, and the American plane brought out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, has been officially traced back to Qaddafi.

Further, during the Libyan rebellion, Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, announced that the regime would side with the jihadists against the liberals.

“Libya will look like Saudi Arabia, like Iran. So what?” Saif said. So much for counter-terrorism.

If Qaddafi had sacked Benghazi, the result would not have been peace and stability in Libya. Benghazi has 600,000 residents; even Qaddafi couldn’t have killed them all. Qaddafi could have terrorized them, with artillery and aerial bombardment, into fleeing, as Bashar al-Assad has done in Syria, but then where would they have fled?

Once the uprising was underway, violence and instability were in Libya’s future regardless; better at that point to at least try to do the right thing. The alternative is on display in Syria.

The NATO intervention in Libya, which lasted eight months, accidentally killed seventy-two civilians. Assad kills more than one hundred civilians, deliberately, every day. During the Libyan war about 5,000 people were killed; even as the chaos spiraled the death toll in Libya from 2014 to 2015 was just over 4,000.

The United Nations stopped counting the Syrian dead at 100,000 in January 2014; a minimum of 230,000 Syrians—and likely closer to 300,000—are now dead. More than 400,000 people have been displaced in Libya (about seven percent of the population). More than twelve million people have been displaced in Syria (more than half of the population).

Put simply, even with an unfinished Western intervention in Libya that left the country to warlordism and a proxy war pitting Qatar and Turkey against Egypt and the Gulf States (primarily the United Arab Emirates), which has allowed the rise of a branch of the Islamic State, Libya is still better off than it would have been without the intervention. The casualties and instability would have been reduced further if the intervention had included a stabilization mission after Qaddafi’s fall.

The international community drew—and enforced—red lines in Libya, which means the outside powers and their proxies have to play within certain bounds, unlike Syria where the West has shown itself able to tolerate mass-rape, ethnic cleansing, and sectarian extermination by the regime.

Whether it is the threat of Islamists, the lack of civil society and the collapse of the State after Qaddafi, or the inflamed ethno-social and tribal divisions in Libya: these are the products of the Qaddafi dictatorship.

Crushing all opposition except the Islamists, making the State the private property of a ruling family, and keeping control by divide-and-rule is a virtual algorithm of Arab dictatorship; it ensures that the only alternatives are fanatics, chaos, or both. Libya’s torments now are not the result of removing Qaddafi but of tolerating him for so long.

Kyle Orton is a Middle East analyst. Follow him on Twitter

15 Responses to “Comment: why NATO was right to intervene in Libya”

  1. jj

    NATO and the USA enforced a no fly zone over Libya, this prevented the Libyan military from bombing Islamists. All the while the USA and us bombed Gaddafi’s forces, and ultimately killed Gadaffi. Let’s stop dictating what other countries do, Gaddafi should have stayed, he kept the lid on the lesser of two evils. And yes, if Gaddafi stayed, we would likely not be seeing another virtual Islamic state being formed.

  2. Sid

    Tosh. The Libian dictatorship was an effective barrier to the sort of islamic extremsim that has now infected the middle east. As with Assad, support for Gaddafi would have been the least worst option.

  3. Stephen Bell

    2 governments, 2 parliaments, a thousand militias running the country, oil industry stagnant, infrastructure destroyed by NATO bombs, living standards of population collapsed (formerly highest in Africa by UN Human development index), systematic discrimination against black Africans, and according to TNC at time NATO bombing killed 30,000. Huge transfer of arms and jihadists from Libya to Syria. A successful intervention by western imperialism, and comfortable apologetics by the writer

  4. Patrick Elder

    A person is not a country. Dictators are not the antidote to foreign powers “dictating” terms to other countries, an immense hypocrisy so many reactionary anti-imperialists fall prey to.


    The attack on Gaddafi and interference in Syria was deliberate policy by the West. To say we were protecting the Libyan civilians and wanted democracy in Syria is probably a bigger lie than the excuse to attack Troy and the Suez Crisis.

  6. Asteri

    If there was ever a Arab country that should not have been interfered with (apart from Iraq and Syria) it was Libya. For those that don’t know ‘Libya’ is an ex-Italian colony created by Mussolini in the 1930s, it had no real history as a nation state. Gaddafi just continued European colonial policy and turned his regime into the country’s identity, Gaddafi ‘was’ Libya and it could never exist without him. His rule was so long he outlived the only causes that he identified with i.e Nasserism and the East in the Cold War. The only thing he had left was to try and reinvent himself as an pan-African leader, something his notoriously racist and anti-black countrymen had no interest in. In the end, it was opportunists within his own regime that turned on him when the time came. So I would agree to an extent with this article, Gaddafi would either have been ousted or died leaving his regime incapable of lasting without him (unless his son had been capable – which is doubtful) either way there would have been chaos but probably not as bad what has been caused by NATO blundering intervention.

  7. sammy jones

    Why can t they admit they was wrong (NATO).Just stop with the apologetics Left foot forward.

  8. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

    Kyle W. Orton is a Middle East analyst interventionist. Take his words with a grain of salt.

  9. Michaelinlondon1234

    The writer makes the point it is OK to kill the leader of a country.

  10. Bernard King

    For interventionists, there are never any negative consequences to western military intervention and every single bad thing in the Middle East is due to there not being enough intervention. It would be funny if the real-life consequences of this misguided policy weren’t so tragic.

  11. Esmee Phillips

    What is a ‘North Atlantic’ Treaty Organisation doing fooling around in Cyrenaica? Why is NATO even still in business, 26 years after the USSR’s eastern European empire cracked up?

    What possible concern is it of Britons what species of idiot or maniac runs political dosshouses such as Libya?

    Labourites should be asking such fundamental questions, not doing the Henry Jackson shuffle.

  12. Esmee Phillips

    Glad somebody knows a bit of history.

    When the shambolic tale of modern Africa is written, the determination of all parties to cling to lines drawn on a map by European diplomats in the late 19C era of ‘Here Be Dragons’ colonialisation will be a matter for wonderment. It was the OAU that reaffirmed the sacredness of Bismarck-era boundaries at Addis Ababa in 1960: an appropriate venue, since ‘Ethiopia’ was another state that barely existed outside atlases.

    Libya had been in Italy’s sphere of influence since before the Great War, as the two colonies into which it naturally divided ethnically. Many of its troubles must have arisen from the attempt to keep them yoked together- like Belgium or Czecho-Slovakia.

  13. Esmee Phillips

    – ‘unfinished intervention’

    + mission creep from here to eternity

  14. Esmee Phillips

    It’s like the federastic response in Berlin and Brussels to every Euro-shambles: ”We need more Europe, not less.”

    The USraeli axis and the military-industrial-security complex associated with it will not be satisfied until the whole world is in a state of permanent revolutionary upheaval, as envisaged by the true intellectual ancestor of neoconservatives: Leon Trotsky.

  15. Paul Egbunike

    Thank Kyle for such a good article . Qaddafi was a power drunk bloodthirsty monster who treated Libya as if it was his private property . Somehow people are only seeing NATO at fault . When Qaddafi made that crude speech vowing to hunt the protester house to house room to room . That was when he dung his own grave. He called them rats ironically it was Qaddafi who fled like a rat and was hunted down and killed like a rat. Instead of feeling sad other wannabe tyrants for life should that the some fate awaits them.

Leave a Reply