Democracy, Libya and the SAS

by David Webb

I don’t have time to write on this subject, but I want to get my view out there that this is no revolution in Libya. It is not the “Libyan people”, but rather an SAS- and NATO-led operation to get rid of Gadaffi. Do we care who runs Libya? Do we know for sure the new Libya will be a democracy? The whole thing is repugnant. Do we even stop to ask what the human toll is when we are bombing whole cities assumed to be inhabited by tribes that support Gadaffi? Respect for national sovereignty has been at a zero throughout this.

The worst thing is seeing Cameron and all the rest strut their stuff, as if they appear so moral and righteous only on the world stage. Cameron is a pro-technocrat who is determined that democracy should not be restored in the UK – we ought to be run, so he thinks, by public-sector bureaucrats and agencies and the EU based abroad – so if Libya is going to be a democracy, what about the UK? Should NATO be bombing Downing Street? And does Cameron have escape tunnels in place? Why do our leaders, so determined that our own polities should be run according to predetermined agendas, promote democracy abroad, or at least appear to do so?

Downing Street sources say there is no sense of triumphalism in the Cameron camp over the Libyan outcome – but you would need to be senseless to believe this. Cameron would rather everyone in Libya dropped dead, if he could spin it in a way that he could present as burnishing his moral image – he cares not a fig (and either do I) for the Libyan people – these wars seem to be being used to create the frisson of a sense of a moral purpose – which Cameron sorely lacks at home.


5 responses to “Democracy, Libya and the SAS

  1. National sovereignty, now there’s a word to conjure with.National sovereignty is being eroded in favour of a new global one via the U.N., N.A.T.O., E.U. e.t.c. Cameron has done nothing to reverse this trend, a trend accelerated by Blair. So if he doesn’t care about our sovereignty why should he care about that of Libya. Already, the new sovereigns are sharpening their knives ready to help’reconstruct’ Libya. They will dole out Libyan money,- very kindly frozen to protect ‘the people’- provided they play by the new rules. But there will have to another war soon. As the rebels looked to be succeeding and the end of the conflict was in sight, the price of oil began to fall, not good for some eh?

  2. All very true. International lawlessness of the most brazen kind, carried out to lay the foundations of a new world order.

    The closest recent parallel to Libya must be Iran in 1953, when the CIA and British Intelleigence managed to kick out Mossadeq and put Reza Shah in his place, camouflaging the whole thing as a local uprising. What a good precedent to be following.

    And of course the 2011 version has been a good deal bloodier. But that doesn’t seem to bother the new global elite much.

  3. We sghould have topped Gadaffi four decades ago.The first steps now should be to restore the monarchy and have full free speech.

  4. C H Ingoldby

    The world is a better place with Gaddafi out of power.

    There is a lot wrong with Britain, but comparing Gaddafi’s Libya with Britain and drawing an equivalence is deeply stupid. It shows you are as fundamentally unserious.

  5. What is a democracy when people vote and the politicians do the opposite of what they promised before they came to power? Most of the people of Britain do not agree with Cameron’s policies but he was voted into power and now they have nothing to say. He does not care about us anymore than he cares about the people of Libya so what is the difference between a dictator and a Prime Minister who treats the people who gave him his job the same way?