The Instigator
Yamashita
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shaunak
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Was NATO's military intervention in Libya justified?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 88902
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Yamashita

Con

Rules:
1) Sources must be credible
2) No personal insults please (keep emotions out of this and remain levelheaded)
3) Keep spelling and grammatical errors to a minimum please
4) Whoever takes up the con side of this, please be sure to argue for con please.

This round is simply for establishing your thesis and no more.

We shall follow this structure:
Round 1) Acceptance & Thesis
Round 2-4) Arguments
Round 5) Rebuttals and Conclusion

I've always felt that NATO's intervention against Muammar Gaddafi's regime was too rash and that Libya would become a political vacuum as a result of his ousting. (One debate I attempted to make from 3 years ago can corroborate that) Since his ousting, Libya has not known peace and is now in a second civil war. With hindsight being 20/20, I feel it is perfectly clear that the current situation in Libya is the direct result of Gaddafi's ousting.
Shaunak

Pro

First let me just explain who Muammar al-Qaddafi was for those who don't know him. Muammar al-Qaddafi ruled Libya as an authoritarian dictator until he was overthrown in 2011. Muammar al-Qaddafi was conceived in a Bedouin tent in Sirte, Libya, in 1942. He joined the military and organized an upset to seize control of Libya in 1969, removing King Idris. Despite the fact that his Arab patriot talk and communist style strategies picked up him support in the beginning of his manage, his debasement, military obstruction in Africa, and record of awful human rights mishandle turned a great part of the Libyan populace against him. Blamed for supporting terrorism, in the most recent decade of his principle Qaddafi achieved a rapprochement with Western pioneers, and Libya turned into a key supplier of oil to Europe. Amid the "Bedouin Spring" of 2011, NATO troops bolstered protesters endeavoring to topple Qaddafi's legislature. After months on the keep running, on October 20, 2011, he was killed in the place where he grew up, Sirte. During the Libyan Civil War, violence between protestors and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17 March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. A coalition including a few NATO members began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. On March 24, NATO agreed to take control over the no-fly zone (which I think should have been done a bit earlier!). NATO officially started enforcing the United Nations Resolution on March 27 with the help of Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. So the United Nations took action under the North Atlantic Treaty which states that NATO meetings will be held to discuss for military consultation and even military intervention (if required) to ensure the safety of the states involved in the treaty. And in this case, areas near Libya that were members of the North Atlantic Treaty and were at risk requested NATO to take action. NATO created a no-fly zone and then officially started enforcing it, which eventually caused in the overthrowing of the Libyan dictator Qaddafi.

So I think that the intervention in Libya by NATO was VERY JUSTIFIED!! and NATO only acted under necessary reasons. They acted under their treaty which states that military consultation or even military intervention might occur if any of the members of the treaty are threatened by any means. And fellow opponent, there might not would have even been a Libya since the conflict between the public and the Libyan Government was escalating at such a high rate and it also included violence.
My Sources:
"Information On NATO." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
"Muammar Al-Qaddafi." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

Thank you, please comment if you have a different opinion, I would love to know more about this topic and from different perspectives too!
Debate Round No. 1
Yamashita

Con

Thank you for the limited background, as spoken from a pro-NATO point-of-view. I shall go on to describe the timeline of Libyan events starting from October 20th, 2011. For the sake of simplicity and saving characters, I shall put it in bullet form.

-10/21/11 The NTC (National Transitional Council, the main body that fought Gaddafi during the war) declared Libya liberated.
-10/31/11 The UN and NATO intervention officially ended.
- Nov, 2011 - Aug. 2014 Factional violence perpetuated throughout all of Libya, as both the NTC and GNC lacked the control necessary to demilitarize the armed groups that fought Gaddafi's forces during the First Civil War.
- August 2012 The NTC transferred power to the GNC (General National Congress)
- February 2014 The transitional constitution that created the GNC stated it was to expire during this month. Some members unilaterally extended the mandate the constitution provided and met after the deadline provided by the transitional constitution. The Council of Deputies were set to take over the government , but because the GNC continued to meet, this essentially created 2 Libyan governments.
- February 2014 General Khalifa Haftar (Commander of the Libyan Army) appeared on television to condem the GNC and proceeded to take over many Libyan institutions, such as the State TV station.
- May 2014 General Khalifa Haftar and troops loyal to the Libyan Army stormed the parliament, manned by the GNC, in an attempt to "correct the path of the revolution". With this, Operation Dignity was launched and Libya has since entered a conflict deemed by most to be a Second Civil War.

During this conflict, from 2014 to now (2016), several things have happened. Tuareg forces have risen up and taken swaths of land in the south. The Islamic State has managed to embed itself in and around Sirte. The CoD controls most of Cyrenaica and Fezzan. The GNC currently controls most of Tripolitania.

Sources:
"Libyan Civil War" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016
"Factional violence in Libya (2011-2014)" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016
"Aftermath of the Libyan Civil War" Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016
"Was the 2011 intervention in Libya a mistake?" Huffington Post. Verizon Communications, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016
"U.S. intervention in Libya now seen as cautionary tale" LA Times. Tribune Publishing, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2016

With this foundation set, I can say that it is pretty clear that, when linked with the timeline provided by the opponent, NATO's intervention in Libya did much more bad than good. Instead of treating the infection (allowing Gaddafi to gradually leave power) they amputated it and now Libya has suffered much more than it needed too. By 2011, Gaddafi had already made apparent his willingness to work with Western powers on a plan for Libya. He had already seen that he could no longer hold on to power, and even though he expressed this willingness, NATO refused.
Shaunak

Pro

Shaunak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Yamashita

Con

Yamashita forfeited this round.
Shaunak

Pro

Shaunak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Yamashita

Con

Yamashita forfeited this round.
Shaunak

Pro

Shaunak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Yamashita

Con

Yamashita forfeited this round.
Shaunak

Pro

Shaunak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Yamashita 1 year ago
Yamashita
Sorry, but I simply didn't have enough room to conclude my argument in round 2. I also wished to say that those that intervened did not intervene properly. They did nothing to help prop up democracy in Libya and did not understand the nuances of Libyan society that would have dictated they help. (Libya is made up of many different tribes and tribalism is rampant and a big part of the reason why the NTC couldn't control all the militias that fought against Gaddafi) In conclusion, the NATO intervention was unjustified in that 1) they didn't know what they were doing, 2) No NATO country could ever have been threatened by Libya and a main stipulation of NATO intervention anywhere is that a threat is posed, and 3) it caused much more harm than good and as of 2016, more people have died as a result of violence than during the Civil War.
No votes have been placed for this debate.