Perusing the many different news sources I rely on for information today, I realized something: we need to redefine the Libyan conflict.
Last week, the United States and more than 30 nations recognized the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya. This does much more than just allow us to turn over the billions of frozen Libyan assets to the NTC. It gives the NTC all the privileges that come with being a recognized government.
One of those privileges, albeit one we seldom think of, is the ability to field an Army and call that army the official army of Libya. Reading headlines tonight, though, I came across this:
Libyan troops kill 8 rebels near eastern oil town
The story begins:
AJDABIYA, Libya (AP) — Government forces in trucks disguised with rebel flags shelled opposition positions Tuesday near the strategic eastern oil town of Brega, killing eight rebel fighters and wounding dozens more, officials said.
Emphasis mine. Now, who were these troops again? The article says "government forces"...but that implies that these forces are attached to the legitimate government of Libya. Since the NTC is the legitimate government of Libya, and since the next paragraph identifies these troops as loyal to Muammar Kaddafi, they cannot be "government troops"...or shouldn't be any longer.
We need to change the narrative. Calling Kaddafi troops "government forces" only reinforces their morale, telling them that they are still fighting for a legitimate government. We need another term for these troops, something that highlights the fact that they are now troops opposing the legitimate government of Libya.
Another example of the problem here is in the headline: it says "Libyan troops...". Well, indeed they are Libyan...at least those who aren't mercenaries. But when you say "Libyan troops", it implies a government force. Just as saying "American troops" implies the US military.
Words matter, and journalists (and editors) need to work through problems like this and find a reasonable solution.