Recently, Canada's Defense Minister, Peter MacKay, announced that peace in Libya won't come while Qaddafi is in power. Then NDP's Foreign Affairs critic clarified the UN's position by emphasizing that it is not looking for a regime change but rather they hope that Mo mar Qaddafi will just stop trying to subdue Libyan dissidents through force and do it through negotiations. Anybody who has seen Qaddafi at work over the past 20 years or so knows that won't happen. The UN can try this diplomatically, but in the end nothing short of complete regime change and military vanquishment is the only way to help Libyans.
This is a new role for Canada. Never in her history has she been involved in regime change while her closest ally, the US, stays out of it. The US did not fair well with it's last effort in Iraq, not quite getting the results everyone had hoped for. In all likelihood, Canada and it's UN partners in this will not do any better. Libya has links with terrorist groups that will, no doubt, come out of hiding if they think they can capitalize on the situation. In any case, Qaddafi's army probably won't have trouble procuring arms and munitions. Canada has committed to 3 more months of military support to help protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi's forces. 200 more rockets have been ordered at $100,000 a pop to support the airstrikes. This is starting to look like a slippery slope. While most reasonable people would support ousting this madman, you can't ignore history. Without exception, every foreign invasion going back to the Romans , while starting out hopeful, eventually fails miserably. The initial goals are never reached, and the people who the invaders are supposed to be helping eventually get tired of being occupied and turn against them; once the old regime is eliminated, the power vacuum is quickly filled by a group that wants the occupying force to leave.
So, the question is will Canada learn from others' past mistakes and not overstay her welcome. Let us hope so. Though I am sympathetic to the Libyan's cause, I feel the only true freedom is gained from an internal struggle. This means more casualties, but it also means that once the revolution is won the people will be in control of their country, not a foreign power.
This is a new role for Canada. Never in her history has she been involved in regime change while her closest ally, the US, stays out of it. The US did not fair well with it's last effort in Iraq, not quite getting the results everyone had hoped for. In all likelihood, Canada and it's UN partners in this will not do any better. Libya has links with terrorist groups that will, no doubt, come out of hiding if they think they can capitalize on the situation. In any case, Qaddafi's army probably won't have trouble procuring arms and munitions. Canada has committed to 3 more months of military support to help protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi's forces. 200 more rockets have been ordered at $100,000 a pop to support the airstrikes. This is starting to look like a slippery slope. While most reasonable people would support ousting this madman, you can't ignore history. Without exception, every foreign invasion going back to the Romans , while starting out hopeful, eventually fails miserably. The initial goals are never reached, and the people who the invaders are supposed to be helping eventually get tired of being occupied and turn against them; once the old regime is eliminated, the power vacuum is quickly filled by a group that wants the occupying force to leave.
So, the question is will Canada learn from others' past mistakes and not overstay her welcome. Let us hope so. Though I am sympathetic to the Libyan's cause, I feel the only true freedom is gained from an internal struggle. This means more casualties, but it also means that once the revolution is won the people will be in control of their country, not a foreign power.
No comments:
Post a Comment