Validity of intervention in Libya

First of all, Colonel Kaddafi is a dictator, a bad man, even a mad man. I am not trying to defend his regime. When his youngest son was arrested for two days in Switzerland for maltreating their domestic staff in the luxury Hotel in Geneva it had triggered a furious reaction from Kaddafi’s regime and some unjust actions like detaining some Swiss businessmen. More examples of degeneration of Kaddafi’s family - read here.

So Colonel Kaddafi is a bad mad man but I am not entirely convinced to the validity of western involvement in the conflict. The conflict erupted fuelled by Arab Spring but the ‘good guys’ might not be as good as many would like to believe. The sides in the conflict are defined along tribal lines. Limited support of the west helps to keep the conflict going on and in an impasse; and the main coalition’s goal – “to protect civilians” – is paradoxically fulfilled to the contrary because more people die and suffer on both sides in prolonged fighting than it would be the case in a quick campaign (regardless which side would have won).  Additionally, if the rebels would emerge victorious it does not necessary mean democracy in Libya.  There are many islamists among rebel fighters who recently killed their commander. Libya has no democratic institutions and plenty tribal partitions and I fear Somali scenario may become a sober fact.