NATO: Killing Qaddafi’s family
NATO planes bombed a Tripoli building that turned out to be the home of Qaddafi's youngest son, Saif al-Arab. The son and three of his children were killed.
Has regime change become NATO’s goal in Libya? asked Richard Spencer in the London Telegraph. Last weekend, NATO planes bombed a Tripoli building in which Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi and his wife were known to be at the time—and it doesn’t look like an accident. The Qaddafis were visiting their youngest son, Saif al-Arab, who was killed along with three of his children. Russia and China, which approved the intervention in Libya only reluctantly in the first place, both expressed displeasure with the “disproportionate” use of force. The Libyan regime called the attack an assassination attempt against the entire Qaddafi family. “What we have now is the law of the jungle,” said government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim. “It is clear to everyone that what is happening in Libya has nothing to do with protecting civilians.”
It’s hard not to agree, said Maritta Tkalec in Germany’s Berliner Zeitung. “Assassinating a dictator is defensible,” even if it is against international law. But murdering a dictator’s son can’t be tolerated. And slaughtering his grandchildren “should be unthinkable.” Those three little children were all younger than 12. Their deaths have made clear that the U.N. mandate to protect civilians “has been thrown out the window.” NATO deliberately targeted a residential home, knowing that Qaddafi family members were there. The true reason for this war is now apparent: “It’s not about protecting civilians, it’s about taking control of an oil-rich state.”
This is the problem with using U.N. resolutions as pretexts for war, said the Financial Times Deutschland in an editorial. NATO has “maneuvered itself into an almost hopeless situation.” The rebels’ defeat has been prevented, but their victory is out of reach unless NATO either sends in ground troops or kills Qaddafi. “The problem: Both those actions are beyond the scope of the U.N. mandate.” NATO now has no choice but to return to firing at only military targets—and hope that one of its shells “accidentally lands on Qaddafi.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Why should NATO agonize over targeting? asked the Netherlands’ De Telegraaf. Given the atrocities Qaddafi has perpetrated against his own people, killing him is entirely justified. His crimes go beyond the airstrikes against civilians in Misurata to include torture of demonstrators and the execution of hospital patients. And he has been “masterminding these crimes against humanity from the very building” that NATO bombed. That makes it a legitimate target, no matter who lived there. NATO simply has to “carry the fight to the command centers in Tripoli,” said the London Times. Yes, some civilians may be killed in such an escalation. But right now, Qaddafi is bombarding Misurata, killing civilians daily. A NATO escalation is the only way to end this war quickly. And “the longer it goes on, the higher the death toll and the more civilians are caught up in the fighting.”
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Earth's magnetic North Pole is shifting toward Russia
Under the radar The pole is on the move
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
Four invigorating paths for solo travelers to take in 2025
The Week Recommends New year, new opportunities to see the world on your own terms
By Catherine Garcia, The Week US Published
-
Pam Bondi, Trump's new pick for attorney general
In The Spotlight Bondi was selected after Trump's first pick, Matt Gaetz, removed himself from contention
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Ukraine: Fascist coup or Russian invasion?
feature Crimean voters will confirm the decision to rejoin Russia in a referendum scheduled for March 16.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Ukraine: Only Germany can deal with Russia
feature Vladimir Putin is betting that the West will simply squawk a bit and then calm down. Will he win the bet?
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Ukraine: Torn between Europe and Russia
feature Ukraine’s revolution may not be over— many in Crimea are waving Russian flags and refusing to recognize the provisional government in Kiev.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Ukraine: Will Europe intervene?
feature The masses of protesters are no longer confined to Kiev—they’re all over the country.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Ukraine: A pro-Europe people with pro-Russia leaders
feature Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are united in fury against President Viktor Yanukovych.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Ukraine: Yanked back toward Mother Russia
feature Ukraine is once again torn between its pro-European and pro-Russian halves.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Europe: Is it time to bomb Syria?
feature The West has so far been governed by those who say the Syrian conflict is too complex and messy to get involved in.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Turkey: Was the military really planning a coup?
feature The charges against the military were so outrageous as to be hard to believe.
By The Week Staff Last updated