The Right Way to Manage an Intervention

For 42 days, Libyans had suffered from the tyrannical dictator Muammar Gaddafi who ru manage them without any mercy and allocated Libyas wealth to his family and himself. On Tuesday 15th of February 2011, Libyans started to finisorse against the politics of Gaddafi. However, Gaddafis response to these demonstrations was horrible. He ordered his forces to open fire on the protestors. According to reporters from the BBC 500 to 700 people were killed during February 2011 by Gaddafis certificate forces. Libyans did non order up, though.Instead, the number of demonstrators increased day by day, especially in the city of Benghazi where the demonstrators were armed. They obligate the police and the array forces to withdraw from Benghazi. For a person like Gaddafi, who ruled Libya for to a greater extent than 40 years, resignation was non an option. He was willing to eliminate the revolution against him no matter how. He ga in that locationd his forces around the cities which the demonstrators controlled and was slightly to commit slaughterhouses against Libyans. The linked Nations had to do well-nighthing to prevent the massacres Gaddafis forces were about to commit.On March 2011, the UN started an interposition in Libya by imposing a no-fly geographical regularize over Libya to prevent Gaddafis ambience forces from killing politeians. This intercession -which was later led by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) proven later that it was the best way to obliterate the conflicts in Libya. The triple main lawsuits keister this statement argon premierely, to protect Libyans from the Gaddafis crime. Secondly, be shell the preventive was non a direct invasion. And finally, because the intervention was done by and by the UN approval.The to the highest degree important motive why the NATOs intervention was the best source in the state of state of state of struggle in Libya is because Libyans needed imperative multitude help to sto p Gaddafis forces from killing genteelians. If NATOs navy in the Mediterranean had non imposed a no-fly zone over Libya Gaddafis oxygenise forces were about to attack civilians in Benghazi and former(a) cities. The Libyan Representative to the UN, Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, tell in a press convocation on March 2011, We be expecting a real genocide in Tripoli. The airplanes are s bank bringing mercenaries to the airports.We are work on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all Tripoli to press cutting off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime. In new(prenominal) words, NATOs intervention saved thousands of lives by applying a no-fly zone over Libya. No peaceful solutions would do so, especially since Gaddafi seemed insistent on continue in his bloody actions against his oppositions. Anformer(a) reason why NATOs intervention in Libya was a model one is because it was not a direct invasion. The NATOs trading surgical processs in Libya were all by accounting en try air and missile strikes against important targets on Gaddafis forces.Ivo H. Daalder, the U. S. Permanent Representative to NATO, indicated that the NATOs operations in Libya were successful by any standard. The operations saved tens of thousands of lives from to the highest degree certain massacre. These operations greatly lessen direct damage. It helped the Libyan opposition to prohibit one of the worlds get finished dictators. All these accomplishments were done without any maimed from the allies and with the personify of only several(prenominal) billions of dollars. That was a atom of that spent in previous interventions in Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq.In opposite words, NATO played a huge determination in sacking a civil struggle which could last for many years by the least damage possible. The consequence of that statement is what happening in Syria today. As no military force intervened to exterminate the bloody war in Syria, the foreign parties have been killing tens of thousands of civilians for more than both years now. Political ways are not helpful in much(prenominal) situation. If NATO hadnt intervened in Libya, the civil war could not be finish till today, or at least it could cause much more victims.The third reason to consider the NATOs intervention a successful one is because it was applied subsequently the UN approval. The military operations were led by a group of allies, and then these operations were led by NATO, which is still a group of allies. This gave legitimacy to the intervention and proved that the intervention was only to save the Libyan people and help them get their freedom, not for the interests of a specific country. Moreover, NATO ended their operations after the death of Gaddafi. Ending their agency is a clear proof that they were not planning to invade Libya.But they were applying the UN solution to save civilians. A report produce on the United Nations official website on 17th of March 2011 clarifi ed that the security department Council writeized the use of force in Libya to protect Civilians from Gaddafis forces, especially in the city of Benghazi, Acting under Chapter seven-spot of the UN Charter, which allows to take military and nonmilitary actions to restore international peace and security. In other words, at that place is no proof that the NATO intervened in Libya for any engaging of benefits.Even on the economical perspective, the cost of the military operations is a subaltern fraction compared to the wealth of Libya which was stolen by Gaddafi and his family. scorn the obvious success of NATOs interventions, there are critics who believe that NATOs intervention was not helpful. The designer of the es enounce The shun find out of NATO Intervention in Libya called that the NATOs intervention that happened in Libya was not helpful. He based his thesis on three main reasons. The first one is because NATO unheeded Libyan people.Secondly, because NATO killed i nnocent people through bombing. Finally, because NATO caused internal conflicts for Libyan people. The author rebooted several(prenominal) good examples to prove that the intervention was not helpful. However, His essay has three marvelous leans. The first one is that the author chooseed that NATO neglected Libyans basing this birdsong on one example. That is considered as a headfirst generalization. The second unconvincing argument is claiming that the main objective of the intervention was to allow Libya without mentioning logical conclusion.The last weakness in the essay is the last paragraph the author claimed that NATO prompt Libyans to fight against each other. In the first paragraph, the author of The Negative Influence of NATO Intervention in Libya concluded that NATO neglected Libyans. He based this intend on the fact that a boat carrying refugees sank in the Mediterranean Sea and NATO didnt manner of speaking the refugees. However, this example is not convinci ng to claim that NATO neglected Libyans because its a hasty generalization.Moreover, the author based this example on a person called JOHN-MARK IYI without mentioning his position or how he is related to the topic. On the other hand, there are a circularise of proofs that NATO saved Libyans. According to the BBC NATO Secretary commonplace Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after announcing the end of their guardianship in Libya, NATOs military forces had prevented a massacre and saved countless lives. He as well said, We created the conditions for the people of Libya to determine their own future. at that place is no doubt that NATO has hurt Libyans to some extent, but this damage was a fraction to the one caused by Gaddafis forces.Claiming that NATOs objective was to conquer Libya is the second unconvincing point in Hijazis essay. A clear proof that NATOs operation was not to conquer Libya is that they announced the end of the mission on the 31st of October 2011 after the end of Gad dafis regime. If NATO had any interests in conquering Libya they would not end the military operations in Libya. Moreover, Hijazi mentioned that NATOs airstrikes killed a striation of civilians and destroyed a circularize of houses without supporting his claim with clear evidence that the people killed were civilians.Especially that Gaddafis army used to hide inside civilians houses, which makes it unverbalised to specify whether the killed people were civilians or soldiers from Gaddafis army. In other words, the points mentioned by the author dont prove that NATO intend to conquer Libya. The last unconvincing point in Hijazis essay is claiming that NATO motivated Libyans to start a civil war. That claim is not logical for several reasons. Firstly, the war started before any foreign intervention in Libya and the main cause of this war is to overthrow the Gaddafis regime.Secondly, Hijazi didnt mention how NATO could get any benefits if a civil war started in Libya. And most import antly, Gaddafis soldiers were not Libyan which means it was not a civil war. Martin Chulov and David Smith print an article in The Guardian website, they say, more black Africans have been arrested and accused of fighting for dictator, but claim they were press-ganged. In other words, its true that NATO participated in the war in Libya, but claiming that they started the war there is not convincing. To sum it all up, the war in Libya caused the death for a lot of Innocent civilians.Without the involvement of NATO, the war would be running until today, causing the death of innocents every(prenominal) single day. Because simply, there was no other clear, political solution would work with the insanity of Gaddafi. For sure, the intervention of NATO was not a accurate choice. However, it was the one with least damage. Moreover, today Libya seems to heel slowly form the war it had, and as luck would have it it seems that the NATO intervention had no dangerous impacts on Libya. In general, its possible to say that sometimes the only way to end violence is to use violence.