More like this
What is Cameron’s aim in Libya? Does he know?
As Nato takes over no-fly zone operation, Crispin Black says the Libya mission remains dangerously ambiguous
The first event in an officer cadet's first day at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (apart from boot polishing and being shouted at) is a lecture on The Principles of War.
In essence, they are a set of military Ten Commandments distilled from the great military thinkers of the past through the British Army's largely successful, and often glorious, fighting experience over 300 years. Sun Tzu, Napoleon and Clausewitz as interpreted by Tommy Atkins, Wellington and Montgomery.
The first principle, carrying the same overriding weight as the First Commandment and usually regarded as the master principle of war, is 'selection and maintenance of the aim'. Its message is timeless and austere - a single unambiguous aim is the keystone of successful military operations.
I can remember being given the lesson myself more than 30 years ago. Our platoon commander was an officer in a Scottish regiment of great renown - think Alec Guinness in Tunes of Glory.
"Why is this the first and most important principle of war?" he barked at us, having written it up on the blackboard.
Brand new officer cadets rarely open their mouths except to say "Yes Sir".
So he gave us the answer himself - I paraphrase without the army's favourite epithet. "Because if you can't get this right, nothing will go right. If you cannot work out what it is you want to do and then stick with it then you are unlikely to succeed. We also put it first because confusion about the aim of military operations is the most common mistake leaders make in war and it usually costs lives."
The first public utterance by the Chief of the Defence Staff on the first day of Operation Ellamy, the UK's codename for operations over Libya, fell straight into the trap.
Politicians and soldiers were not singing from the same hymn sheet. After the foreign and defence secretaries had hinted publicly that we might target Colonel Gaddafi personally, General Richards stated forcefully that such a thing was not permitted by UN Resolution 1973.
Only to be contradicted a few minutes later by the Downing Street spin operation. Only for a softer focused message to come out in the prime minister's subsequent statements in the Commons.
If it was a cunning plan to confuse the Libyans, in the end we were the ones who looked confused. For all the frenetic diplomatic and military activity, the basics of the military operation in Libya have not been sorted out, the implications not considered, the decisions, if any, not communicated properly.
The consistent message from the government has been that this is not another Iraq. Maybe. But despite Tony Blair's multiple lies and evasions, at least he and George Bush had selected their aim: regime change.
It's not quite clear what David Cameron wants to do with Colonel Gaddafi. Certainly Richards, personally selected by Cameron to be his top general, seems to have got the wrong end of the stick. Running a war is not like an essay crisis.
The confusion has already reduced the chances of Gaddafi's departure. His moment of maximum vulnerability was in the minutes and hours after the UN resolution was passed.
Given the extensive British intelligence presence in Libya after Gaddafi came in from the cold it seems unlikely that the allies did not have some idea of his usual haunts. But we missed the opportunity. Gaddafi went to ground and appears now to think there is all to play for.
Despite this the Prime Minister appears energised, almost enjoying it. It's certainly more fun than reducing the deficit - for him at least. What a shame that such an enthusiast for military action performed no military service himself. Just the one day at Sandhurst could have made a big difference. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
In the first place what business has Cameron to intervene in Libya, who is he to want regime change in another country ( not a British colony, mind) and to initiate it? He is just a pompous twit who wants to get his name in lights. If he does not care about the fate of the British people who elected him to look after their affairs, (all the insane cuts show this quite clearly) do we really believe in his deep concern for the Libyan people, to want to start a war for them? Sarzoky is not even worth mentioning, possibly the least intelligent French president ever, a suitable bed fellow for Cameron.
The British economy canâ??t afford another senseless war and Britons should come out in large numbers and say no to Cameronâ??s destructive policy. He should be spending the millions spent daily the in war to much needed job creating projects for British youth. Wake up young man (Cameron) Britons donâ??t need a repetition of Blair madness.
" ... But despite Tony Blair's multiple lies and evasions, at least he and George Bush had selected their aim: regime change." -- Not so! Both Bush and Blair waffled consistently, even without a UNSC resolution. If we want to recall, it was first Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), then putting a stop to Iraq harbouring those terrorists (who back then, in fact, did everything they could to avoid being caught inside Iraq) and only when it became clear that no WMDs would ever be found (Iraqi defected General Kamel was de-briefed in 1996 by CIA and MI5 to that effect) did the tune switch to regime change and "bringing democracy" to the ME. Back then, the only 'war aim' by Bush and Blair was war itself and the rapidly switching rationale for it was owed more to polls in both the UK and US.
It is my impression today, that 'regime change' in Libya is now only a goal to be achieved via Western intervention, but the aim (!) of this war seems to be to have that effected through the Libyan opposition who are now provided a more level "playing field" through this intervention on the basis of UNSC 1973. Complicating this scenario is the tribal strife, however, and I haven't gotten a clue how this will eventually play out in the course of time. Libya could well wind up to then be brutally dominated by the eastern tribes, thus possibly driving out the devil with Beelzebub.
I would bet London to a brick that none of the Cameroons have any idea of what they've got us into. Liam Fox tuther night on TV was such a gormless fool - he didn't know/care that anyone with half a brain knew he was blathering. No different to Osbourne or Dave "I agree with Nick'', whether referring to the NHS or Budget or anything of relevance to the taxpayer.
They (believe that they) are born-to-rule, the rest of us a grit under their taxfunded tyres.
I wish I had some faith that our Heir to Blair Prime Minister knew what he was doing, but I don't. We should not be having anything to do with the Libyan situation and certainly not risking the lives of servicemen/women - something Blair was very keen to do. What do we know about these self-styled seekers after freedom who are begging for our help? Why haven't they turned to their Muslim brothers in surrounding countries who have plenty of aircraft and other armaments most of which they have bought
from us?It could well be that whoever takes over from Gadddafi could be just as bad!
Cameron's purpose - if not his objective -- is indeed very clear. Let's distract the peasants with a war; let's wrap the Government in the mantle of moral rectitude by dispelling a tyrant. Thatcher tried it with the Falklands when things were tough for her domestically; "Call me Dave" is trying it on again. And this time he has a little French dwarf on his side too as well as all the pygmies in the Cabinet.
" ... But despite Tony Blair's multiple lies and evasions, at least he and George Bush had selected their aim: regime change." -- Not so! Both Bush and Blair waffled consistently, even without a UNSC resolution. If we want to recall, it was first Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), then putting a stop to Iraq harbouring those terrorists (who back then, in fact, did everything they could to avoid being caught inside Iraq) and only when it became clear that no WMDs would ever be found (Iraqi defected General Kamel was de-briefed in 1996 by CIA and MI5 to that effect) did the tune switch to regime change and "bringing democracy" to the ME. Back then, the only 'war aim' by Bush and Blair was war itself and the rapidly switching rationale for it was owed more to polls in both the UK and US.
It is my impression today, that 'regime change' in Libya is now only a goal to be achieved via Western intervention, but the aim (!) of this war seems to be to have that effected through the Libyan opposition who are now provided a more level "playing field" through this intervention on the basis of UNSC 1973. Complicating this scenario is the tribal strife, however, and I haven't gotten a clue how this will eventually play out in the course of time. Libya could well wind up to then be brutally dominated by the eastern tribes, thus possibly driving out the devil with Beelzebub.
@FrankPoster..................
"current breed of PMs is really like, saying one thing and doing another, spinning away like crazy?"
They have no choice. To gain power they must say what people want to hear. Telling the truth does not win (enough) votes. Without votes, no power. If decent and fundamentally honest people wish to win power in order to do good, they must lie to get the power they need. Blame the stupidity of (very many) people, combined with modern communications. More information is useful only when the recipients are able to make sense of it.
Cameron's objective is vey clear; to get rid of Gadaffi. He does not yet have the mandate to do so, or a least their is confusion, but nevertheless he has made his mind up and I think that is obvious for everyone to see, even if it is not printed in black and white. Has no-one learned what the current breed of PMs is really like, saying one thing and doing another, spinning away like crazy? Bliar was a Master, and so is his natural successor Cameron. He also probably realises that once Gadaffi is stirred he will be extremely vengeful and dangerous and needs to be completely neutralised and not left with a rump state capable of launching attacks on Southern Europe and terrorist attacks any where.