Will Libya change David Cameron?

This has been a defining moment for David Cameron, just as Tony Blair‘s intervention in Kosovo was for him. But whereas Blair developed a whole theory of liberal intervention in his famous Chicago speech we must wait to see how the remarkable success of Cameron’s Libyan campaign will change him.

There are big differences of course – the Libyan intervention was backed by the UN, had broad support across the world and risked very few British lives.

There was always a risk that the situation would explode, that there would be a demand for ground troops and a bigger intervention had Gaddafi deployed the full might of his forces. But the most likely risk was always that it would drag for on a long time, be a big drain on British military resources and that the policy would be undermined as public support for it was eroded. So the government stuck its neck out, and may well be rewarded for it in the end.

The Prime Minister’s motives always seemed straightforward – he was compelled to act to stop Colonel Gaddafi killing civilians, as he  fought back against the rebellious east of the country. Benghazi could have been a bloodbath – and that was prevented. In the simple terms in which it was framed the intervention was a success from day one. And there is no way we would be where are now if there had been no air campaign to stop Libyan forces crushing the rebellion.

But what now? The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have been talked about by Mr Cameron – now the test comes as to whether he has really learned them. British influence on the ground will be limited now – “Free Libya” can ignore British advice if it chooses. The rush for business contracts will no doubt ensure a big Foreign Office push, but it is support in establishing security and stable government that Libya will need. And it is not clear whether its new leaders will be asking for help or not. The lack of a political elite or a recent democratic tradition could become more apparent as time goes on.

The bigger question is how David Cameron applies his experience to other crises. His Foreign Secretary William Hague is quite clear that Britain will only act within UN authority when it comes to Syria – there is no question he says of military action which is bluntly opposed by Russia and China.

Blair’s heroic reception in Kosovo after the war seemed to help him develop a confidence about liberal intervention. It is conceivable that Cameron will develop a comparable confidence about the diplomatic route – able now to argue to other world leaders that intervention can have a happy ending. Or will he quit while he is ahead?

Follow @krishgm on Twitter.