An influential committee has attacked the Government for its "troubling" failure to learn the lessons of British military intervention in Libya.
A parliamentary inquiry earlier this year found the UK's involvement in the campaign was based on "erroneous assumptions" and an "incomplete understanding" of the rebellion against former dictator Col Muammar Gaddafi .
The scathing report by the Foreign Affairs Committee heavily criticised then prime minister David Cameron for turning a limited intervention intended to protect civilians into an "opportunist policy of regime change" based on inadequate intelligence.
But the Government has dismissed some of the key findings of the probe, insisting ministers had detailed information about what was happening on the ground and that the objective at "all times" was to protect civilians.
MPs said the response showed the Government has "yet to appreciate the lessons" from the intervention and had failed to "work through the logic" of the evidence in its report.
Committee chairman Crispin Blunt said: "The committee accepts that, as the Government response suggests, UK policy in Libya was initially driven by a desire to protect civilians.
"However, we do not accept that it understood the implications of this, which included collapse of the state, failure of stabilisation and the facilitation of Islamist extremism in Libya.
"The Government response does not work through the logic of the detail supplied in evidence by key figures including General Lord Richards, Lord Hague, Dr Liam Fox, Sir Alan Duncan and academics - who suggested that decisions were not based on accurate intelligence or a full understanding.
"This suggests the Government has yet to appreciate the lessons from our experience in Libya, including our lack of country knowledge amongst those drafting and deciding policy. This is troubling, because Libya should inform the development of future UK foreign policy.
"The failure of the stabilisation, including an appreciation of the scale of the task, should have engendered a robust process of self-examination in Government to improve future performance.
"I believe we are about to repeat the failure to have adequate plans and resources for stabilisation in Mosul. Libya should have taught us these lessons."
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.
In its formal response to the committee, the Government dismissed suggestions that UK had followed France's lead, insisting the decision to take action was based on "British intelligence, assessment and policy judgments".
It added: "The Government does not agree with the conclusion that no proper analysis of the rebellion or threat posed by the Gaddafi regime was carried out.
"Real-time and evolving military, intelligence and diplomatic assessments gave ministers an understanding of the detailed context in which to take strategic decisions, as well as identifying areas where further information was needed."
"It is not accurate to suggest that the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention," the response went on. "The UK used a variety of diplomatic and political tools in its efforts to protect civilians in Libya."
The Government also rejected calls for changes in the way officials on the National Security Council (NSC) can raise concerns about policy and seek explicit ministerial direction to undertake actions agreed by it.
Mr Blunt said: "We welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has now been made a full member of the NSC and that the make-up and structure of the sub-committees has been adjusted to ensure appropriate oversight by all relevant ministers and experts.
"However, a straightforward mechanism is still required for non-ministerial NSC members to request written prime ministerial directions to undertake actions agreed in the NSC, or at least to have their concerns minuted, rather than for these accounts to emerge in conversations with historians.
0 comments: