NATO will have a role in stabilising North Africa and the Middle East

The argument

In the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring, NATO forces successfully intervened in the Libyan Civil War to prevent genocide. The justification given for this intervention, which was outside of NATO's normal scope, was based on the view that the destabilisation of states in North Africa and the Middle East would lead to a further rise in terrorism in Europe and an increasing number of refugees seeking to cross the Mediterranean. The decision by NATO forces to intervene in Libya has set a wider precedent for the region. Making it likely that in the future similar justifications could be used as a pretext for NATO intervention and a wider role.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The NATO intervention in Libya failed to establish a stable government post-Gaddaffi, which has led to increased smuggling, trafficking, and the rise of terrorism, the very things it perported to stop. Rather than encouraging further intervention, this failure has led to NATO countries avoiding involvement in subsequent civil wars and revolutions in the region, including in Sudan, Syria, Algeria, and Lebanon.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The stated justification is evidence of how the intervention was argued for, not of what will follow; and the operation proceeded under a Security Council authorisation for civilian protection, a condition the premise treats as a standing licence rather than the exceptional circumstance it was. [Rejecting P2] The precedent has run the other way, as the counter notes: the outcome in Libya is widely cited within member states as a reason for staying out of subsequent conflicts in the region, so the same event supports the sibling position that NATO's traditional role simply continues.