In order to be able to say if today it is actually useful to spend economic and human forces on a possible Libyan attack, it is necessary to proceed with a balancing process of the interests at stake.
If on a scale plate we have the expense of our Armed Forces, on the other we observe the Libyan interest to create and maintain a state of fine peace, among other things, to allow us a constant enjoyment of the energy resources today compromised - first among all the oil wells - and a coastal control that allows a mapping and a stopping of the continuous flow of refugee subjects that escape from the advance of Islamic terrorism and that compromise our security as uncontrolled flows.
First, the major criticism is against the United States and its failed policy against the war on terrorism. The 11 September 2001 attack - an event that marks the most significant failure of US intelligence services after the Pearl Harbor disaster - has struck the start of a war against Islamic terrorism that, to date, has not has produced no result but the death of too many of our military. Together with this American policy we can well call it "hit and run" towards Islamic fundamentalism - a war in fact often conducted with the shield of peacekeeping that did not allow a work of dismantling the regimes of terror but their escape into others territories with a consequent expansion and strengthening - the mission of which the new continent's superpower felt invested was to remove the heads of government of the Middle Eastern states to lead them to a democratic order that immediately proved to be a failure and that allowed a proliferation of terrorism.
A real fact is that if the terrorist can be defined as such, he is a subject that moves actions against public safety acting on the wave of terror induced to the affiliates, therefore represents an absolute vice against the main human rights, first of all being able to live aware of a stable and general security situation. Today all this is lacking, and not only in Libya or other Middle Eastern countries, but all over the world. There are in fact no one hundred percent secure areas, indeed, to date a danger of attack is extended to all those states that are located west of the Islamic one for the mere fact of being Westerners, to all Christian countries and to all those who hamper the achievement of the goal of the conquest of Rome.
The current situation in Libya, previously seen as a success of the Franco-American intervention for the donation of democracy, represents the failure of the western access in the African state today failed-been devastated by the internal struggles between tribes and the advance of the al-Qaeda and ISIS groups. The current approach followed by the international community has preferred, to military intervention, the path of peace negotiation under the aegis of the United Nations, a long and unlikely route, indeed this territory could become a permanent refuge for terrorism which it would cause a much broader humanitarian crisis.
Libya's long borders populated by conservative young unemployed, the return of soldiers applied to the Syrian and Iraqi fronts and the multiple weapons raided in the Gaddafi era, present themselves as a succulent dish for aspiring jihadists. Libya risks becoming, together with Iraq and Syria, the seat of war conducted by the Islamic State. In the African State today, fundamentalist factions that do not reciprocally recognize their legitimacy clash, including ISIS, al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia (the group responsible for the attack carried out in September on 2012 to the detriment of the US diplomatic structure in Benghazi which saw the killing of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans). This massive spread of terrorist groups in Libya is a direct consequence of the collapse of the Libyan state, a failure therefore of the Franco-US policy more than of the entire international community. US President Barack Obama himself, during an interview with the New York Times in August 2014, admitted his responsibility and the failure of the United States in the post-Gaddafi aid program. The country today is divided between two governments: that of Tripoli, made up of conservatives who favor the revolution, and that of Tobruk, which represents the moderate strength recognized by most other countries. The forces of Tobruk have so far recognized the help of Egypt, the Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in the common Jihad war.
Libya is therefore the current focus of the battle against Islamic terrorism that has expanded from the Middle East to Africa. The effects of the advancement of the jihadists has led to a worrying decline in oil production due to constant fighting, and in a country that relies almost exclusively on the commercialization - and therefore on the proceeds - of crude oil, a continuous decline in production would result in a the impossibility of paying salaries to workers and of importing essential assets for the survival of Libyan citizens, presaging an even more devastating economic and humanitarian crisis. Despite these nefarious omens, the international approach is static and does not seem to change. In compliance with international laws, there are those who plead as an armed intervention in Libya should be authorized by the Security Council, but in the opinion of the writer the contingent and current threat to commit to the Western States, especially Italy, unjustified ills, threat that often - as the recent terrorist attacks and the executions of a few days ago do well demonstrate - has not remained so but has turned into a fait accompli, it already offers the possibility to act with the use of force to prevent a danger that is increasingly becoming real. We are therefore in a state of strict necessity.
Then there are subjects who object as an intervention would mean the use of a significant amount of air and sea forces as well as tens of thousands of troops, especially then for stabilization to be offered at the end of the conflict, but I find no discrepancy with the multi-year commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq. At this point I do not see the reason why the intervention was arranged in those places that did not represent an actual and actual risk - at least according to the canons of international humanitarian law - denying today an action against a danger that yes, this, effectively meets the current requirements of the threat of conflict proper to the international law of armed conflicts for the inherentright proper of the art. 51 of the United Nations Charter. At least today we should lend strong military support to the Libyan armed forces and to general Khalīfa Belqāsim Haftar (photo).
The option chosen was therefore that of confidence in the future, but hope has never won any struggle, from domestic squabbles to the most bloody wars. What resolves the policy is the concrete intervention to eliminate the danger, eliminate the destabilizing factor. Today we opted for a policy to contain the current situation, hoping that one day peace negotiations will be concluded. These, however, need support from the regional powers and from politics, which must prove able to control their own forces on their territory, not to mention the necessity of the existence of a will to compromise. On all three conditions there is no hope of optimism, and at best, even if a negotiation were reached, it would still be necessary to send a United Nations security force. In other words, military intervention is in any case essential, an action that must be complemented by active political and diplomatic efforts but which must not remain unused. The hands-off policy implemented by the Western states in the post Gaddafi did not work: it has eliminated a dictatorship lasting 42 years to finish from bad to worse. Today, making a serious and concrete war that aims to completely dismantle the Islamic terrorism of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other jihadist organizations, is necessary and end to ensuring the well-being of the entire international community.
(photo: US DoD / web)
