Qualifying “Military Assets”

David Cameron yesterday does not rule out “the use of Military Assets” in Libya.

The rebellion has run out of steam, due to a lack of arms, while Gaddafi is now solidifying his position, while seeming to enjoy himself.

So as the attention yesterday switched to diplomacy; the use of words becomes of paramount importance.

It’s therefore worth noting that the Prime Minister’s use of the term “Military Assets” is both a striking and somewhat original use of language.

Military Assets could include arms and equipment, but would be an unlikely term for a politician to describe British soldiers. It is a term that doesn’t restrict the British to a No Fly Zone.

So as we see Libya evolve from a fast moving revolution, to a slow moving stale mate, to the possible resurgence of Gaddafi, the question of supplying the rebels becomes apparent.

As the Prime Minister and foreign Office take sounding from other world leaders, they have been pleased to discover that Gaddafi is friendless in the world. Although in the region it is not as simple as all that.

As a bottom up rather than top down intervention, this is unlike Iraq, which made neighbouring Syria and Iran uncomfortable that they might be next, so they actively encouraged insurgency, ushering Islamists across the border, and causing Saudi Arabia to respond by funding Sunni groups in the quagmire.

However, the nervousness of Saudi Arabia is also apparent by their public promise to lower the oil price, while deliberately keeping it high, to remind the world of the economic consequences of a rebellion in their own country. (See Kaletsky £)

The Egyptians have publicly stated that they are against foreign troops on Libyan soil. However, they have not objected to the arming of the rebels.

The British press became excited by discussion of intervention over the last couple of days. So while the international soundings were made, it seems that the home reaction to intervention was also being tested. The conclusion was restricted to the lack of means of making another major intervention.

The rebels are committed but under armed. Gaddafi is well armed but with relatively little commitment from his army.
Supplying the rebels with military assets would likely be sufficient to tip the balance in favour of the rebels, but with no idea of what would emerge, it would be a very risky venture.

One Response to Qualifying “Military Assets”

  1. Thus Spake Zarathustra says:

    Apart from the obvious battling against authority one thing I’ve suggested about countries like, say, Iran is a significant component of their regimes PR is driven by insecurity. That’s not necessarily a political or religious thing but a personal thing. In that respect I think a lot of British people (and rulers in general) have a shared agenda.

    I thought Cameron was a hair brained inept dud before the election and this past week or so has put Cameron under that spotlight. His breed of polished sneering arrogance isn’t what I’d call change. However, the unintended consequence of that is that competence, confidence, and caring are something people may rediscover as an unintended consequence.

    All main parties have got a lot wrong in their desire to win elections. The wrong sort of competition tends to develop rigidity, extremes, and capital loss in the broadest sense. A leader like Gadaffi is easy to pick on but the more abstract dictator in the form of a country’s culture is harder to grasp. As the British people become aware of it’s existence it’s becoming a concrete issue. This changes everything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: