Cameron’s Rules of War?

Much has been made of David Cameron’s morphing into Tony Blair over Libya.  He denies the comparison, pointing to cabinet discussion of the legality, and the UN Resolution. But he was also blunt about his new rationale for military action. The question is has the Prime Minister learned his own lessons before deploying British forces to attack the Libyan regime? In his first foreign policy speech to the Lord Mayor’s banquet last November David Cameron said :

“In recent years, we have made too many commitments without the resources to back them up, and we have failed to think properly across government about what we were getting ourselves into and how we would see it through to success. So, in Iraq, there was no plan for winning the peace. In Afghanistan, we failed to think through properly the implications of the decision to deploy into Helmand Province in the summer of 2006. As a new government, we should learn the lessons and make changes.”

So far David Cameron keeps saying the aim of military action is limited to Resolution 1973 which states the UN :

” 1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;”

Beyond this David Cameron says it is merely a British “desire” for Gaddafi to be removed. It is hard to see how military action can be commenced without it leading to Gaddafi’s removal one way or another. Leaving him in power would obviously create a bigger enemy once Britain, France and others start bombing. He isn’t suddenly going to change his mind and decide he’s been wrong all along. So this, in reality, may have to lead to a policy of regime change.

Whereas Tony Blair laid out his five principles for liberal intervention in his Chicago Speech (which also acknowledged there wasn’t time or resources to fight every battle) Cameron today seemed to admit the inconsistency of his actions. He was asked whether he is going to look at military intervention in places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain who also put down civilian protesters, suppress demands for democracy and abuse human rights? The answer was blunt : “I want to say”, he said “that just because you can’t do the right thing everywhere doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it anywhere.”  Did he just want to say that, or did he say it? I’m not entirely sure but i think the latter.  Then as well as saying the action was about enforcing a widely supported and legal UN Resolution, David Cameron said Britain’s action was also based on a “hard headed” assessment of our national interests. In other words now Gaddafi is our enemy he poses a threat to both our security and economy. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain do not.

Gaddafi has said hell awaits anyone who attacks Libya. We can only hope David Cameron has done all that thinking on post-conflict planning, and what we might be getting ourselves into that he says Britain missed over Iraq and Afghanistan.