Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Parliamentary inquiry heavily criticises ‘opportunist’ David Cameron over Libya intervention

The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee heavily criticised David Cameron (PA)
The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee heavily criticised David Cameron (PA)

BRITAIN’S military intervention in Libya was based on “erroneous assumptions” and an “incomplete understanding” of the rebellion against former dictator Col Muammar Gaddafi, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

In a scathing report, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee heavily criticised David Cameron for turning a limited intervention intended to protect civilians into an “opportunist policy of regime change” based on inadequate intelligence.

It said the then prime minister’s failure to develop a coherent strategy to support the country following the overthrow of Gaddafi had led to political and economic collapse, internecine warfare, humanitarian crisis and the rise of Islamic State (IS) in north Africa.

Ministers and officials should have realised that the rebels included a “significant Islamist element”, the committee said as it called for an independent review of the way decisions were taken by the National Security Council (NSC).

It warned the international community must now get behind the United Nations-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) to prevent the country descending into all-out civil war.

Committee chairman Crispin Blunt said: “The UK’s actions in Libya were part of an ill-conceived intervention, the results of which are still playing out today.”

An international coalition led by Britain and France launched a campaign of air and missile strikes against Gaddafi’s forces in March 2011 after the regime threatened to attack the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

Mr Cameron argued the intervention was necessary to prevent a massacre of civilians but the committee said the available evidence showed that, despite his appalling human rights abuses over 40 years, Gaddafi had no record of large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.

It said the Government “selectively took elements of Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value” while there was no evidence it had carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the revolt against him.

“The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion should not have been the preserve of hindsight,” it said.

“It may be that the UK Government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight and that it was caught up in events as they developed.

“UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

Once the immediate position of Benghazi was secure, the committee said there were political options – including through Tony Blair’s contacts with Gaddafi – which might have delivered civilian protection and a change of regime at a lesser cost to both the UK and Libya, but these were not pursued.

“By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya,” the committee said.

“The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Isil in North Africa.

“Through his decision-making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”

While the Government identified the need to secure the large stockpiles of weapons in the aftermath of the overthrow of Gaddafi, the committee said it was probable none of the countries involved was prepared to commit the necessary resources.

As the leaders of the coalition, it said Britain and France had a “particular responsibility” to support Libyan reconstruction but the failure to establish security of on the ground meant it was an “impossible task”.

The committee said there should now be an independent review of the operation of the NSC – which was set-up by Mr Cameron – to see if it had succeeded in addressing the weaknesses in government decision-making identified in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


READ MORE

Blair still belligerent as Chilcot pulls no punches

Lindsay Razaq: David Cameron had a shabby end to his tenure