When Attack And Defence Are One And The Same

I always thought Gary Lineker was a centre forward.  Turns out that, logically, he was a defender.  Confused?  So am I........

Recently, David Cameron toured various Gulf States on a trade mission, accompanied by businessmen that are euphemistically known as 'defence manufacturers'.  The name given to such companies is quite noble, a throwback to a mythical age when weapons were produced in order to defend the vulnerable from attacking hoards, most of whom wore helmets with horns to signify that they were the baddies.  Our heroic defenders would only use weapons as a last resort, only when the attack could not be scared off by any other means.  As with most fairy stories, though, the truth is far more sinister than the fiction.

The current action in Libya has opened up a window into international relations which many believed had been slammed firmly shut after Tony Blair's ill-judged foray into Iraq.  David Cameron, egged on by the French government, was determined to secure a UN resolution for 'action' against Colonel Gaddafi.  The reticence of the USA to become deeply involved in such action spoke volumes.  Cameron seems to  believe (completely erroneously) that the main problem with the Iraq conflict was the absence of a new UN resolution.  How wrong he is.  The main problem with such forays into other states is that most people judge them to be morally dubious at best and at worst, completely hypocritical.  Why Libya?  Why not Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Zimbabwe or Bahrain?  You may well ask.  And I could not answer.

The reasons for the course of action that Cameron has taken probably lies in his sojourn overseas.  Some of those countries mentioned have been customers of the UK's 'defence' manufacturers (that phrase again) for a long time, placing millions of pounds worth of orders for British military hardware.  Some of this 'defence' equipment has been put to very good use lately, turned against unarmed pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain.  Indeed, the government of Bahrain has not been selfish - it has even invited the Saudi's to come in and test their 'defensive' equipment on the same demonstrators.  What fun.  I can imagine the two countries generals comparing notes as they flick through the catalogue.  "Hey, Ali, I've got a number 25, watch what it does," (button is pressed, a whooshing noise is heard, and a small mushroom cloud appears in the middle-distance.  "You think that is impressive?  Watch what my number 32 can do." (Whoosh).  "Wow, you can vapourise!  Remind me to order a number 32 when the country's internet is turned back on again.  All this defence is just too enjoyable to stop!"

So why Libya?  Perhaps it is something to do with sheer volume of sales.  Maybe a rueful Gaddafi is currently sitting in his compound in Tripoli regretting his failure to set up a repeat order for CS gas canisters and pepper sprays from those lovely British 'defence' manufacturers.  Maybe buying in bulk is a good way of avoiding air strikes.  Perhaps that is what is meant by defence?  The bigger your order, the better defended you are against air strikes.

So the French and the British take military action while the US keeps a low profile.  Comparisons to Suez must be avoided at all costs (after all, that action was led by a foppish Old Etonian Prime Minister enraged by the actions of a Middle Eastern Colonel and led to thousands of British military personnel being deployed despite the forces being stretched by existing commitments elsewhere.  Erm......).  So the MoD in London gleefully announces that Qatar and the UAE have been involved in the action too.  Brilliant.  At least the British have great bastions of democracy and human rights on their side then....

Innocent people are dying all across the world.  The International Community (such as it is) has a completely hypocritical response to such events, borne out by their insistence on bombing innocent civilians in Libya.  After all, British manufacturers have yet to invent a weapon that can discriminate between a 'goody' and a 'baddy', a bunker and a school, a hospital housing Gaddafi's henchmen and one treating innocent civilians.  Bombing innocent people to protect the lives of innocent people makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  The speed and relish which the British and French have shown in taking military steps hints that regime change is very high up on the agenda, and the protection of civilians is a convenient excuse to get rid of a dictator we don't like.  As opposed to the ones we do.

David Cameron has always aped Tony Blair and he cannot help doing it again.  He seems determined to repeat Blair's mistake of dabbling militarily in the Middle East without any idea of an exit strategy.  He has hit fast forward to Blair's seventh year in office without any of the good bits of the first six.  It's almost inevitable that Cameron will meet the same sticky end, and hooray for that.

Back in the late 70's, a mixture of African and Middle Eastern states worked together to oust Idi Amin from Uganda.  The action was not bloodless by any means, but the strategy took people along with it and ensured that the worst excesses of civil conflict were avoided.  Similar strategies were available to Blair and Bush in 2003, but they were eschewed in favour of macho posturing.  For Bush, seeing Saddam Hussain swinging from the end of a rope was worth the countless civilian lives lost.  The West seems to hanker after the same end for Gaddafi.

I never thought I would say this, but I wish William Hague had been right and Hugo Chavez spare room had been pressed into action.  At least that way, innocent Libyans might have been spared the full brunt of those lovely 'defensive' explosions.