A Critical Analysis of NATO's Intervention in Libya, IR Course

This essay examines the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, analyzing the historical context, motivations, and consequences of the military operation. It begins by outlining the events leading up to the intervention, including the Libyan Civil War, the actions of the Gaddafi regime, and the invocation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The essay details the objectives of NATO's Operation Unified Protector, the military actions undertaken, and the challenges faced. It explores the justifications for intervention, including the protection of civilians from human rights abuses, and critiques the decision-making process, highlighting the political factors involved. Furthermore, it assesses the impact of the intervention on Libya's political landscape, the rise of instability and the long-term consequences. The essay also discusses the concept of regime change and its implications. Finally, the essay evaluates whether NATO's intervention was justified, considering the ethical, political, and strategic dimensions of the intervention.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International Relations
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Background
The intervention of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Libya is one of the
historical events in the peacekeeping across the entire world. It was in the year 2011 when the
NATO forces entered the country, there were many problems that were going on within Libya.
This was done so the United Nations Security Council 1973 could be implemented. This
resolution had been done signed by France, United Kingdom and Lebanon. The government of
Libya could not manage the situation because they could gun down a single plane used by the
forces of NATO.1
On the other hand, it should be said that French air jets launched heavy attacks through
air strikes. They launched attack on the military vehicles and destroyed them completely.
According to the reports by media, it has been found that civilians had been attacked in Libya by
Gaddafi.2 The challenges were thrown directly on Gaddafi and his supporters. Therefore, it must
be said that the allied NATO forces wanted to put an end to the disruptive practices of the
Gaddafi regime. The Libyan government was controlled by Gaddafi and his unethical practices
were the biggest reasons for the intervention of NATO to save humanity.3
1 Nato.int. 2020. "Homepage". NATO. https://www.nato.int/.
2 Beresford, Alexander. "A responsibility to protect Africa from the West? South Africa and the NATO intervention
in Libya." International Politics 52, no. 3 (2015): 288-304.
3 Al Nahed, Sumaya. "Covering Libya: A framing analysis of Al Jazeera and BBC coverage of the 2011 Libyan
uprising and NATO intervention." Middle East Critique 24, no. 3 (2015): 251-267.

2INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by NATO was the reason why they intervened. The
analysis of the role of NATO must be done to come to a conclusion if these actions were
justified. Libya did not protect its citizens from genocide and they even carried on with this
social evil. In order to understand other reasons for intervention of NATO, one must surely
understand the chronological factors behind this historical move. The conditions of Libya in the
21st century declined in terms of its human rights and international inventions were highly
needed to stop the inhuman torture to which civilian people were subjected to. It was very
evident from the scenario that the regime of Gaddafi had civilians as their target.
The main attempt of NATO was to protect the civilians of Libya from the grasp of this
torturous regime. United Nations urged NATO to take some positive actions so those people
could be saved from mass destruction. In the year 2011, the coalition forces of NATO allies
combined and they went on with their military operations to save the common people of the
country.4 Many people were rendered as shelter less in those vicious attacks by Gaddafi regime.
There were high chances of insurgency if they got any external help from neighboring countries.
The mission by NATO was named Operation Unified Protector (OUP).This operation went on
for few months and it was successfully concluded by allied forces on 31st day of October of the
same year.
In this course, some situations are responsible for this incident in this region. Previously
in the year 1986, forces of the United States conducted bombing in Libya. The code name of this
mission was Operation El Dorado Canyon. Airstrikes had been conducted on Libya on 15th of
April in the year 1986. The operation was completely carried out by US navy, US Marine Corps
4 Nato.int. 2020. "Homepage". NATO. https://www.nato.int/.

3INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
and US Air Force. Around 40 Libyan people died but a plane was shot down by Libya too. This
began the overall tensions between the two countries Libya and United States. Moreover tensions
were also raised on the Western countries whom Libyans through to be enemies. According to
the reports, it had been claimed that daughter of Muammar Gaddafi, Hana Gaddafi had been
killed in this strike. As a result of these events, Libya had responded very quickly when they
fired two Scud missiles at Lampedusa, an Italian island. This was the marine coast guard station
for United States of America.
They also believed that America declare every country to be an outlaw or terrorist if they
did not agree to become a vassal for them. Due to all these events, Gaddafi went on to make an
internal revolt and destroy the allies of America in no time. Though it was known Gaddafi was
not in the scene of public sphere between the times of 1986 and 1987. In the later years,
Government of Libya had ordered to hijack the Pan Am Flight 73 at Pakistan in the year 1986
only.5 In this incident around 20 people had died. This proves the terrorist activities to which
Libya was indulged. The situation was going out of control and Australia discarded any foreign
relationships with Libya saying they were attempting to encourage the violent terrorist activities
within the country.6
The Libyan civil war came to existence when the armed conflicts were fought between
the loyal people of Gaddafi and people who wanted their government to fall. The Libyan
5 Nato.int. 2020. "Homepage". NATO. https://www.nato.int/.
6 Beresford, Alexander. "A responsibility to protect Africa from the West? South Africa and the NATO intervention
in Libya." International Politics 52, no. 3 (2015): 288-304.

4INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Revolution took the central stage and people were completely outraged at this point of time. This
was also known as 17th February Revolution. Many protest activities took place in the region
Zawlya before the war broke out in 2009. Further protests took place in the year 2011 at
Benghazi and it paved the way for the civil war. The clashes between common people and
security forces were an obvious outcome in this situation. The security forces had opened fire on
the crowd. The protests were so loud and fierce that it had transformed into a rebellion in the
later years. People who protested against Gaddafi had set up an interim government. They named
it National Transitional Council.7
On 26th February, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had taken up a big move
towards this issue. They seized some crucial assets of Gaddafi and his close people. After that
they also controlled the overall movements of Gaddafi in international sphere. This issue was
also taken to the International Criminal Court.8 A big force of Gaddafi did not sit back but they
rather formed a rally. Through this, they began to shift towards the east and took back some
cities across the region under their control. Furthermore, all the member states of the United
Nations were ordered to enforce the no-fly zone. They wanted to make sure that attacks on the
civilians must be stopped at any cost. In order to confirm it, all member states should take up
necessary measures.9 Most of the military installations had been damaged by the allied forces of
7 Brockmeier, Sarah, Oliver Stuenkel, and Marcos Tourinho. "The impact of the Libya intervention debates on
norms of protection." Global Society 30, no. 1 (2016): 113-133.
8 Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste Jeangène. "Ten myths about the 2011 intervention in Libya." The Washington Quarterly 39,
no. 2 (2016): 23-43.
9 Beresford, Alexander. "A responsibility to protect Africa from the West? South Africa and the NATO intervention
in Libya." International Politics 52, no. 3 (2015): 288-304

5INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
NATO. The rebels did not support the offers provided by the Libyan government or African
union. Their only demand was to remove Gaddafi from the throne of Libya.
NATO has always been known for their operations against terrorism and they have
contributed to this issue in a large manner over the decades. According to the experts of the
international relations, terrorism has always been a big threat for the member countries of NATO
in all forms. So, it is their biggest responsibility to save the lives of these people. This would also
provide the stability and ensure prosperity in the different countries in various continents.
Terrorism is such a threat that has no border, national identity or even any religious propaganda.
Therefore, NATO allied forces always prepare themselves to protect the lives of all the people in
the countries where terrorism has affected the lifestyles of common people. The proper reason
for their intervention in Libya was mainly to secure the lives of common and innocent people so
they could live a progressive life.10 Still, this issue of the intervention in Libya by NATO has
always raised several debates in the minds of critics. The issue of protection of common civilians
was the highlighted point but many critics have opined their main purpose was political behind
this kind o intervention.
Many events took place during those times that fuelled these debates more and more. The
death of Gaddafi’s daughter was probably the main political reason why Gaddafi regime
launched attacks on American shores as well as hijacked planes. During this time, it is well
evident that the role of NATO was quite mysterious and they supported America for various
10 Al Nahed, Sumaya. "Covering Libya: A framing analysis of Al Jazeera and BBC coverage of the 2011 Libyan
uprising and NATO intervention." Middle East Critique 24, no. 3 (2015): 251-267.

6INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
reasons.11 The allied forces of NATO were mainly led by the Americans and they wanted to
settle this thing once for all. They wanted to shut the protests of Libya forever and this was only
possible by the mass attacks on Libya for the sake of protecting the lives of common people.
Therefore, most critics have opined that this issue of protecting the lives of common
people was only used as a shield or camouflage. These actions taken up by NATO were
completely contradictory in most cases indeed. The extent of that intervention was also
somewhat doubtful though they claimed the full success of that mission. The Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) and issue of regime change can be defined properly so the context of NATO’s role
could be put under thorough analysis.12
Analysis
In this section of the paper, analysis will be done if NATO’s intervention was correct or
somewhat doubtful. The definition of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has been very interesting
factor that was administered in the United Nations World Summit that took place in the year
2005. This definition reflects on the fact that all the individuals in the world had their
responsibilities to protect its people from all forms of genocide, crimes, ethnic discrimination
and war crimes that were exhibited against humanity. The international organizations had been
established by the will of all the nation states so they could take care of these innocent people. In
11 Eriksson, Mikael. "Towards selective regionalization? The intervention in Libya and the emerging global order."
In Regional Organizations and Peacemaking, pp. 241-260. Routledge, 2014.
12 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. "Power in practice: Negotiating the international intervention in
Libya." European journal of international relations 20, no. 4 (2014): 889-911.

7INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
this scenario, the tortures imposed by Gaddafi on the civilians were very important to be taken
care. Most of things were completely woven through for the successful intervention into Libya.
They wanted to keep it secret that their actual purpose was to control the oil production in the
country. It was completely unethical to intervene into the internal matters of the country just for
political and economic purpose and shielding it through humanitarian purpose. If France gained
the access over the production of oil, they would have gained better chances for controlling the
overall economy of the Middle East regions.13
It was also the responsibility of the United Nations that they would protect the common
people through the help of the United Nations through all forms. They would also be responsible
to protect the common people from genocide and war crimes. The counterattacks would have to
be lethal and people should be saved by the international community and the help of Security
Council. If the solutions cannot be derived by peaceful ways, the Security Council would impose
military actions against these people. The regime change is also a very critical aspect in this
scenario since the change in regime would take place by altering beliefs, values and activities
practiced by the previous regime. The set of rules and decision making processes would change
in the new regime.14 The people of Libya wanted to change the Gaddafi regime because their
decision making systems became very fragile and it needed to be changed as soon as possible. If
13 Doyle, Michael W. "The politics of global humanitarianism: The responsibility to protect before and after
Libya." International Politics 53, no. 1 (2016): 14-31.
14 Kuperman, Alan J. "Obama's Libya debacle: how a well-meaning intervention ended in failure." Foreign
Affairs 94, no. 2 (2015): 66-77.

8INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
the regime of Gaddafi was changed, it would mean the rules, principles of the country and their
decision making processes would be changed also.15
Some critics have justified these definitions so the actions of United Nations and NATO
could be proven as right. This intervention of NATO was crucial and to some extent very
important also. Here the concept of leadership from the perspective of Moammar Gaddafi should
be evaluated.16 It must be acknowledged that Gaddafi was a sort of erratic leader. He was very
brutal and he executed so many people through his actions. In the beginning of his reign, he was
termed as an international hero but later he transformed into the international pariah. He used his
strategies so well that he did not give any opportunity to his critics about the actions. He always
had a justification for his actions throughout. He was a kind of leader who developed his own
political philosophy and work accordingly.17
Many critics believe that his ideologies or political beliefs had the ingredients of all
philosophers like Marx, Locke or Plato. He had been termed as “Picasso of the Middle east
politics”. His influence in the Middle east was so high that regularly appeared in the Arabian
world and international gatherings. On the other hand, his sense of clothing and fashion surprised
15 Eriksson, Mikael. "Towards selective regionalization? The intervention in Libya and the emerging global order."
In Regional Organizations and Peacemaking, pp. 241-260. Routledge, 2014.
16 Chollet, Derek, and Ben Fishman. "Who Lost Libya." Foreign Aff. 94 (2015): 154.
17 Doyle, Michael W. "The politics of global humanitarianism: The responsibility to protect before and after
Libya." International Politics 53, no. 1 (2016): 14-31.

9INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
everyone.18 Therefore, it shows that his entire appearance was influential and he cast a spell on
his followers through his actions. He went through different times like pan-Arab period, pan-
African period and Islamic period.19 He was so much free spoken that he had the courage to
threaten the oil companies about the rights of his people. He was very bold and confident when
he said that people could live without oil if people were able to thrive without oil for 5000 years
in the ancient times. Still some of his policies were very problematic that did not satisfy his
countrymen at all. He was so stern in his objective that sealed him the success when Libya was
recognized as the first developing country in the world to get the revenues from their own oil
production.20
His political philosophy did not allow him to follow the ideals of Arabian nationalism or
consumerism beliefs of the Gulf cities. Rather he developed his own administrative styles that
made him one of the best leaders among the Islamic countries. He published his own Green
Book where he developed an ideology that could solve the conflicts between communism and
capitalism in an evident manner. He wanted to establish a set of rules where oppressed people
18 Zambakari, Christopher. "The misguided and mismanaged intervention in Libya: Consequences for
peace." African Security Review 25, no. 1 (2016): 44-62.
19 Türkmen, Füsun. "From Libya to Syria: The Rise and Fall of Humanitarian Intervention." In Presentation at the
2014 ACUNS annual meeting. 2014.
20 Terry, Patrick CR. "The Libya intervention (2011): neither lawful, nor successful." Comparative and
International Law Journal of Southern Africa 48, no. 2 (2015): 162-182.

10INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
would be free from all the shackles.21 However, some theories in the political philosophy of
Gaddafi were highlighted with intolerance. Therefore, he was unable to attract the people in his
favor. The political participation of the common people was on its way to extinction since
Gaddafi turned out to be a complete monarch.22
A critic like Alison Pargeter described her views on the regime of Gaddafi and
intervention of NATO in the internal matters of Libya. She described Gaddafi as an eccentric
leader. She also said allied forces of Gaddafi took over the region of Ajdabiya from the hands of
protestors.23 Still, they did not attack any one of the civilian people in these missions. This
incident took place in the month of February in 2011.24 This took place just sometime before the
intervention of NATO while allied forces attacked the country to siege the Gaddafi regime. She
was also in favor of the regime o Gaddafi and political ideology that he used to run Libya. She
opined that Gaddafi took a very important approach of appeasement towards the rebels in the
21 Hoffman, Marcelo. "Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya: Lessons for Africa in the Forging of
African Unity." (2014): 419-422.
22 Peskin, Victor, and Mieczyslaw P. Boduszynski. "The rise and fall of the ICC in Libya and the politics of
international surrogate enforcership." International Journal of Transitional Justice 10, no. 2 (2016): 272-291.
23 Vilmer, Jean-Baptiste Jeangène. "Ten myths about the 2011 intervention in Libya." The Washington Quarterly 39,
no. 2 (2016): 23-43.
24 Igwe, Stanley C., Mohamad Ainuddin Iskandar Lee Abdullah, Sherko Kirmanj, Kamilu S. Fage, and Ismail Bello.
"An Assessment of the Motivations for the 2011 Nato Intervention in Libya and Its Implications for
Africa." Canadian Social Science 13, no. 4 (2017): 1-12.

11INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
country.25 He also released all the prisoners of Islamic faith and he promised them that he will
look into the issue of development in Benghazi. This kind of assistance is given by most leaders
in the world but very few acts accordingly.
In the words of critics, Gaddafi was such a leader who always stuck to his beliefs, values
and promises. Therefore, it was always certain that Gaddafi will look forward to the ultimate
development of the common people of Benghazi and other regions in Libya.26 The release of
Islamist prisoners was also a benevolent act from the perspectives of Gaddafi.
After going through such information, many scholars of the international relations have
said that this kind of international intervention into another country is definitely unethical.
Simply putting the fact, this intervention was not needed at all since Gaddafi would have been
able to deal with all these properly with his political philosophy and leadership styles properly. It
was very clear from the chronological events that it was the purpose of the United States to
defeat him and get hold of the oil resources in Libya.27 Simultaneously, United States could also
get access in the African continent also. Thus they would get dual advantages.
25 Colley, Thomas. "What's in it for Us: Responses to the UK's Strategic Narrative on Intervention in Libya." The
RUSI Journal 160, no. 4 (2015): 60-69.
26 Richter, Paul, and Christi Parsons. "US intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale." Los Angeles Times 27
(2014).
27 Mezran, Karim K., and Elissa Miller. Libya: From Intervention to Proxy War. Atlantic Council, 2017.