Cornish

As the rebels take control in Libya, and the Gaddafi family take their last stand, now is the right time to question the role of the West in this enterprise.

Initially it seemed that we backed the equivalent of the Cornish National Liberation Army to overrun London; an arbitrary grouping whose only qualification was dislike of the government.

But after reading the article Who really beat Qaddafi? I'm ready to accept the two main points that Clay Claiborne makes. Firstly, that we should know the rebel Libyans, due to the plethora of internet media about them. And secondly that the West has taken too much credit for a revolution that was going to happen anyway.

I remember turning on the news to see cheering rebels in Tripoli's Green Square, even though 24 hours earlier commentators were suggesting progress to the capital was slow. The sudden conversion of Tripoli from Gaddafi supporting heartland to rebel held bastion indicates that the mainstream media reports on the ground were inaccurate, and that revolution was well prepared. Whatever amateurish behavior we were shown weeks ago from yahoos in jeeps was a misdirection.

This leads to the likely reason for the latest Middle East escapade; that the West wanted to reduce the time between the predicted collapse of the dictator and a new government taking charge so as to keep oil resources running smoothly. Again, given the speed of natural regime change during this Arab Spring, you can see the logic in this from a skittish corporate world.

While hoping that Libyans achieve some measure of security, David Cameron and the other Gung ho leaders will now be seeking their reflected glory. Indeed, it is hard to separate local political ambitions from their stated wishes to bring liberation. The UN mandate to stop Gaddafi striking non-military Libyans was converted into a regime change order. The security of Britain was not in question, yet by simply acting quickly very little democratic checks were put in place.

Libya is not in our geopolitical back yard. If Iran supported IRA incursions into Belfast, I think we would be the first to complain. To get involved simply because the geography made it possible – unlike in Syria – is pathetic. On reflection, the diplomats who worked with Gaddafi to stop his earlier nuclear ambitions must have believed he was not the worst thing in the area.

We have already seen several times that there is absolutely no way to install democracy from outside - assuming democracy in itself is a panacea. However happy Libyans now appear to be on rolling news, most of them have lived their lives with the idea that government has nothing to do with them personally. With the best will in the world, they will not be able to hand over their guns and increased taxes like consumer sated capitalists.

There is something very wrong with the speed at which democracies now use military interventions to gain short term poll benefits. It is almost as if by working fast, people see a tactical necessity that doesn't exist. Too many politicians simply went along with the idea that bombing a dictator's compound was part of a humanitarian mission. This presidential style of decision taking seems to have eclipsed cabinet identity, so without some form of direct democracy, continuous war is the likely future.