The west’s military-political strategy against the Gaddafi regime echoes its flawed approach to Afghanistan and Iraq, says Paul Rogers in this, his 500th weekly column for openDemocracy.

The military intervention in Libya now threatens the Arab democracy risings. This makes diplomacy and demilitarisation essential, says Mark Taylor.  

Full militaristic intervention cannot be justified on the grounds that this is a ‘just war’. We are then left with the option to intervene militarily in a smaller way or not to intervene militarily at all.

For the sake of Libyan society as a whole, women must play a more equal and visible role in shaping it.

If the opportunity can be seized to help more people to build prosperous lives of liberty in their own countries, perhaps Europe’s Islamophobes will be able to stop worrying about immigration or insecurity.

Providing air support and arms for the Libyan opposition is necessary if stalemate and partition are to be avoided, argues Ranj Alaaldin

In the end the prospects for democracy depend on whether the rebels can mobilise support politically throughout Libya. The problem with the military approach is that it entrenches division. Our preoccupation with classic military means is undermining our capacity to address growing insecurity.

The United States and European intervention in Libya leaves open key questions about the future of western power in the wider region, says Godfrey Hodgson.

The diplomatic context of the anti-Gaddafi war is different from that of earlier western military interventions in the Arab world. But its motives, methods, silences, and falsities are all too familiar.

The international war over Libya began on the late evening of 19 March 2011. Its meaning depends on the angle of vision - and what happens next.

The Gulf Co-operation Council, whose normal work is to consolidate and promote oil interests, would do well to remember that just last week it admonished Gaddafi for using force against his fellow citizens.

Even as the United States military quietly prepares for possible action against the Gaddafi regime, the violence of rulers in Tripoli and Manama promises to stall the Arab democratic wave of 2011.

How should the London School of Economics have handled its Libyan connections? Fred Halliday strongly opposed engagement, while David Held, Co-Director of LSE Global Governance, has been a major supporter. Is this shown to have been naïve or complicit? No - a risk worth taking, argues the author

If major western capitals reach a consensus with the Arab world to intervene in Libya, Tehran may well perceive this as a threat against its own survival.

World mulls no-fly zone as Gaddafi troops gain ground: time is running out for rebels. India overtakes China as world’s largest arms importer. More civilians fleeing clashes in Ivory Coast as situation spirals towards civil war. Saudi troops sent into Bahrain. South Sudanese leaders pull out of talks amid accusations of northern intervention.

The so-called nuclear renaissance is irrational. Just look to Libya and Japan.

The military balance of Libya’s domestic conflict is raising debate about external intervention. But the strategy of the Gaddafi regime is also crucial to what happens next.

Politicians and public need to address the moral argument around the use of force, encompassing the humanitarian and democratic arguments deployed in favour of intervention balanced against risk aversion and moral objections.

Britain's responsibility to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi's crack-down is unavoidable. We must not be so fixated on our past mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan that we fail to help Libya to free itself. Let's pressure our government now to back a no-fly-zone and break with Britain's sorry past.


The military-political deadlock in Libya between supporters and opponents of the Gaddafi regime leaves a pervasive uncertainty over the country’s future. But even greater challenges will follow this conflict, says Alison Pargeter.