It is therefore in the UK’s interests to have a stable country on the southern border of Europe, a nation that is not a source of tens of thousands of refugees that Italy will happily rubber stamp permits for and send them on their way to the land of milk and welfare honey, the UK that is, and a nation that could be a valuable trading partner.Is this what its all about?
Is this why the UK and France were so gung-ho about military action in Libya?
If so, then all the talk about a humanitarian military action was just a cover. A flimsy cover but a cover non-the-less.
It appears that many of my friends in Europe have been holding back some vital information. It also explains why the effort has been so haphazard. If the real goal isn't regime change but rather to prevent illegal immigration then that goal has already been achieved...
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI don't quite follow your logic here. If France and the UK wanted a stable Libya to reduce immigration, then it is not clear how the current NATO strategy supports this. The limited engagement using only air power would seem to generate more refugees and potential immigrants to Europe.
If the UK and France took more aggressive action, then it seems likely the conflict would end sooner (assuming limited strife post-Gaddafi). Also, had the UK and France sent in ground troops, it seems less likely that Gaddafi loyalists fleeing the country would flock to either of the invading countries.
Similarly, if NATO took no action, then Gaddafi would have likely already quashed the rebellion. The longer a conflict goes and the greater the extent of the fighting, the more people will be displaced and try to flee and resettle elsewhere.