I just saw the news. On Easter the pope spoke about Libya and a day later bombs fell close to the man everyone seems to love-hate.
Of course, what happens there is war and no war is "nice". But is it just? Is there a good reason to fight or get involved in fighting? Peace protesters around the world say no. Human Rights groups say we had to protect the weak, innocent and endangered. Some add: by force, if necessary.
Let me put it another way: You know I’m German. It is a duty to me, to keep the lecture of my countries bitter past alive. It's not because of me, but because of the victims it took. However, about a month ago Germany didn’t take part in the election about the Libyan question. The press was enraged Germany had indirectly violated humanity once again, but they didn't analyse the alternatives. Saying yes meant to send in troops - which is since WW2 no option for Germany - to liberate the Libyan people from its "mad" leader, while saying no meant to stand idly by and watch them die. But why do neither?
Conflict statistics say every war endures longer and draws more blood from the involved the more foreign help is involved. In other words: It doesn’t matter if you aid the Libyan rebels with money, food, weapons or whatever, in the end the war will become more painful. The alternative would be not to helping, which is equivalent to let the rebels die. Still, this unnecessary bloodshed and violation of human rights would have stopped afterwards within a week without any further incident. Of course this outcome is of no one’s favour, since social networks and well networked human rights organisations would publicise the murder immediately worldwide like it’s been done several times already. Not helping would therefore mean to be identified as a supporter of the Libyan dictatorship, which is unacceptable after the incidents in Tunisia and Egypt.
So now the NATO is supporting the rebels by putting bombs on military aims and having an eye on the Libyan air force, weaponry and logistics. Is it much? Yes and no, because on one hand the equipment used therefore is some of the most expensive toys militaries can play with while on the other hand not a single soldier is sent to set a food on Libyan territory (yet), which would be the magical threshold to actual name it a war against Libya. And while the NATO goes on bombing journalists say, the rebels’ only chance to make any move is more help from the allied forces. That means if we go on like this there will be stalemate that will last until a (un)lucky incident decides the conflict or it’ll last forever.
An invasion – and "going in" means nothing else – means to be absorbed in violence and if you can win you have to rebuild the nation you just destroyed. As we can see in the Middle East, even though the US Army could take over within a minimum of time, conflicts and rebuilding might take decades to be ended.
So if can neither going in, out or going on are right decisions, what can be done? The last card to play – or the first and longest to be played – is diplomacy. War IS ALWAYS the last resort. Diplomacy however is a modern, logic and – most importantly – the least bloody way to settle conflicts. Being democratically raised in the western world, I don’t see any alternative to it. Still, diplomacy is the art of words and they haven’t achieved anything yet. There are offers discussed in the news, so that the uniformed camper can retire in peace and without going to court, but the fights go on. Am I the only one recognizing that this is going nowhere peaceful as long as Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi isn’t "retired"?
No I'm not. Everyone with half his brain active knows the cause and who's the most responsible. However, this man isn't a puppeteer holding all the strings. Just some of the most important and someone will take over if he falls. So things are far more complicated than a couple of lines in a Blog can show, but that doesn't change anything about the most important question:
What would you do?
