Military Intervention in Libya

Introduction

A multinational coalition launched a military intervention in Libya to implement Resolution 1973 of the Security Council of the United Nations, which was taken in response to events during the 2011 rebellion in Libya with the objective to stop attacks by forces loyal to Gaddafi against civilians and rebels. On March 19, military operations began with the launch of more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles by the U.S. and British naval forces, the air raids of the French Air Force and Royal Air Force UK, and a naval blockade established by the Royal Navy British. The first air strikes against tanks and other armored vehicles were made ??Libyan Army by fighter French. The official names of the activities of the coalition members are: Operation Dawn of the Odyssey of the United States, Operation Harmattan of France, Operation Ellamy the United Kingdom and Mobile Operation of the contribution Canada.

Military Intervention in Libya

Since the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition Belgium , Canada , Qatar , Denmark , Spain , United States , France , Italy , Norway and United Kingdom has expanded to 16 countries, with most new states imposing no-fly zone and the naval blockade. The first intervention was largely led by France and the UK, sharing the command with the United States. The NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March under the name of Operation Unified Protector. It was agreed that NATO took control of the air exclusion zone, while the control of ground attack units remained in the coalition forces (Benard, 454).

As is well known, the traditional left does not like the military interventions and, in general, military activities. It is a grim legacy of militarism that lives in our country during the Franco regime, which has resulted in a total distance to any military activity. That attitude translates into a total rejection towards military expenditures, arms exports, military parades, national defense policies, and logically, interventions abroad. There is a non-discriminatory attitude which leads to contradictions in the background, because that way no answers to what to do with the people who are in danger and slips the package at a time to activate a "right to protect (Benard, 454)."

This is expressed, for example, in a clear criticism towards excessive military expenditures and not substantiated, to the policy of encouraging trade in arms to countries that violate human rights or are in crisis, to the glorification of weapons, the promotion military research against cuts in nonmilitary research, or the effort to introduce the culture of the military defense in the school. This seems to me objectionable, they are manifestations of militarism.

However, I can argue that there is a small armed force and specially trained to work in maintenance of peace, in coordination with the United Nations. This applies to actions like those of Libya. It is true that since part of the left and the peace movement there is a classic debate about whether it would be the disappearance of national ...