Arming the Libyans

OK. So we are now embroiled in a 'military action' in Libya which 'does not involve regime change' and in which we will 'not be deploying ground troops' and which is, apparently, less popular than the invasion of Iraq so famously launched illegally by Tony Blair.

The problem is that Gaddafi's troops are disciplined and well armed and the rebels aren't. There was a case earlier this week of one of their men being killed by his own gun while he was trying to figure out how to work it. Apparently, one of our aircraft obliterated a bunch of rebels who mistakenly opened fire on a NATO aircraft. This latter incident was particularly strange as  there are no Libyan planes in the air at the moment, so it only goes to illustrate the discipline problem.

It would also appear that some of our non-deployed ground troops are telling the aircraft where to drop their bombs and that Gaddafi is not a target unless, of course, 'he happens to get in the way of our bombs'.

So can we believe a word of it when we are told that we will not be supplying arms to the rebels? I suspect not.

Eventually, if it is not happening already, other nations - possibly Arab - will be supplying arms to either or both sides in this bloody civil war. But they won't be getting them from us. Or will they?

Gaddafi's forces are armed by weapons supplied by this country. Some of the army units have defected to the rebel side so they also have weapons supplied by us. It's a lucrative business. But of course it would be immoral and possibly illegal to supply arms to both sides in a war - especially when we are then also engaged in destroying the very materiel that we supplied in the first place.

However, let's not forget that our illustrious PM was recently involved in a tour of the Gulf accompanied by a bunch or - er - arms dealers! And, after all, if those countries then decide to sell them on to Libya then it's nothing to do with us...