Libya: A Conflict of Self-interest
THE GUARDIAN: Under Cameron the state is big enough for a war, but too small to keep our local libraries open

The onslaught by the US, Britain and France to impose regime change in Libya – for that is what this war is about – has little to do with saving lives and less with supporting democracy in the Arab world. It is about controlling, not sustaining, the drive for change in the Middle East, by bringing the whole process under western domination.

The belief of the rulers of Bahrain and Yemen – that they have the west's blessing to do whatever is necessary to crush protest while Colonel Gaddafi is to be obliterated for doing much the same – is the starkest sign of this.

The UN security council decision has given the stamp of legality to an essentially lawless project. This situation calls for assertive mediation, not massive bombardment, if saving lives is really the concern – as the second thoughts already gripping Russia, China and some Arab leaders indicate.

The UN decision was taken at the instigation of the frightened autocrats of the Arab League, few of whom can claim any mandate to rule superior to that of Gaddafi's brutal regime. Behind a transparent Qatari fig-leaf, its implementation has been subcontracted to the same powers who have spread such havoc throughout the Arab world for a century and more, up to and including Iraq. » | Andrew Murray | Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Libya: An Unedifying Muddle for a Country At War
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Telegraph View: Our RAF pilots are entitled to know why they are risking their lives in Libya. Regrettably, no coherent explanation has been given.

When British forces are put in harm's way, as RAF pilots are in the skies over Libya, they are entitled to expect absolute clarity about the purpose of their mission. We ask them to risk their lives for us: they are entitled to know why. Regrettably, no such clarity has accompanied the early stages of the action to uphold UN Resolution 1973.

On Sunday, Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said that targeting Gaddafi personally "would potentially be a possibility" under the terms of the UN resolution. When the same question was put to General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, yesterday, he replied: "Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further." At the best of times, it would be alarming to see the political head of the Ministry of Defence publicly at odds with the military head. At a time of conflict, it is unforgivable. Matters quickly went from bad to worse as No 10 briefed that Sir David was "wrong" – not the message you want to hear about your military commander when we are at war. Admittedly, events have been moving quickly. As David Cameron told the Commons yesterday, it had been a "race against time to avoid the slaughter of civilians in Benghazi". Even so, that cannot excuse such discordancy. Both the minister and the general must have been sitting around the same table, listening to the same briefing on the legality and implications of the UN resolution. How could they possibly emerge with such contrasting analyses? Continue reading and comment » | Telegraph View | Monday, March 21, 2011

THE GUARDIAN: Is Muammar Gaddafi a target? PM and military split over war aims: David Cameron says Libyan leader may be a legitimate target while Chief of the Defence Staff said he was 'absolutely not' » | Patrick Wintour and Ewen MacAskill in Washington | Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Britain: The Second World War
THE TELEGRAPH: The Build Up to War


THE TELEGRAPH: The Phoney War


THE TELEGRAPH: The Battle of Britain


THE TELEGRAPH: Britain at War

Britain at War

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>