Letters | 11 June 2011 | The Spectator

Folly in Libya

Sir: Congratulations to Andrew Gilligan and Hugo Rifkind (‘Oh, what a silly war’, 4 June) . You’ve shown exactly what the allied effort in Libya is — an expensive exercise in futility and a farce. Almost nobody outside a narrow band within the political-media class can see the point of having singled out the regime of Gaddafi, hitherto a man with whom we could business, as the Middle East despotism that we had to tackle. Even those who profess support for the war are uncertain about what we are trying to achieve. Yet here we are, stuck in a conflict that we can’t afford and probably don’t even want to win. Gilligan suggests that ‘permanent stalemate’ might be the best outcome, as it would avoid ‘a messy fight for control of the country if the regime fell’. Sadly, such an outcome is almost impossible. There’ll be much more blood spilt before we’re finished.

Alan Joyce
Portsmouth

Sir: Under King Idris, the east of Libya, with Benghazi as the capital, was the favoured region. When Gaddafi seized power almost 40 years ago, he shifted the capital to Tripoli and ever since then the west of the country has been in the ascendant. This has always, understandably, been a source of deep resentment to the inhabitants of the east. On the other hand, approximately twice as many people live in the west.

Since Libya is still very much a country of tribal communities, it is clear that by backing the eastern tribes against the tribes in the west, the UK and its allies are supporting the side that lacks the clout to win a civil war. The current stalemate would seem to be proof of this. But shouldn’t somebody have pointed out this fact to Messrs Cameron and Sarkozy before they plunged headlong into another ill-advised and costly foreign conflict?