New documents show that the European Union is in the process of drawing up plans for a military deployment into war-torn Libya, with an eye toward bolstering even a semi-stable ceasefire with force of arms.
There are several different options with different troop levels, though the biggest, at about 10,000 troops, is “excluded at this stage” as simply too risky. That said, every option conveys substantial risk, because Libya is in no way a stable environment.
Indeed it isn’t wholly clear whose side the EU would be on. Though nominally a stability mission, Italy is seen as favoring the Government of National Accord (GNA), and France is backing the Libyan National Army (LNA).
In 2011, NATO intervened in Libya’s Arab Spring, leading to the ouster and death of Moammar Gadhafi, and nearly a decade of struggling with interim governments, some endorsed by the UN, most not, and few ever even approaching serious control over more than a few cities.
Colonial mentality is alive and well in the EU. Who’s surprised?
The original “European” attack by France was a thin cover for a US attack, arranged in the most cynical fashion by US hawks, Hillary in person visiting Paris. It was done to force Obama’s hand after he refused to attack Libya.
So is this another hawkish move to get the US to act in Libya. Is this a thin cover for US troops to go in when Trump is reluctant as he was against Iran?
That would be my first expectation.
German colonial ambitions were kept in check by the UK, France Netherlands etc in the past. Today Germany dominates all these countries however much they would like to pretend otherwise. Those old ambitions may yet reappear, and it now has the resources of the whole of Europe to satisfy them.
“Is this a thin cover for US troops to go in when Trump is reluctant as he was against Iran?”
What should always be added to a statement like this is the fact that Trump was reluctant after HE set the stage for any reason to be reluctant.
How does one say “quagmire” in French, German, Italian, Dutch. …… “