The committee had completely disregarded the catastrophic consequences of the war, it had no interest in who Norway and NATO had bombed for victory, and it had not sought to find out whether there was cover for the allegation that Muammar Gaddafi's forces had attacked civilians – the claim that had legitimized the war in March 2011. It was Rune Ottosen, professor emeritus at OsloMet, Tormod Heier, professor and lieutenant colonel at the Norwegian Defense College, and Terje Tvedt, professor of history at the University of Bergen, to initiate a broad investigation of the Libya war.
The result of the war was political and economic collapse, war between militias and tribes, a humanitarian crisis and a refugee crisis.
Some believe that the Petersen Committee's weaknesses were narrow mandates and incompetence. But if Petersen had thought it necessary to extend the mandate, he would have been able to do so, and already two years earlier – in September 2016 – the British lower house published its investigation, which was a shattering criticism: many were aware from the outset that the revolt was characterized by militant Islamists and that there was no cover for the allegation that Gaddafi had attacked civilians or would start killing civilians. The report also showed that the war was a disaster:
«The result was political and financial collapse, war between militias and tribes, a humanitarian crisis and a refugee crisis, extensive violations of human rights, the proliferation of Gaddafi regime weapons throughout the region, and the rise of ISIL in North Africa. "
The authorities were fooled
One would think that the Petersen committee would take on this criticism. But the committee did not, and here Heier, Ottosen and Tvedt take over. Tvedt takes up the Norwegian idea of the war as «the world community's. . .
(Do you have Subscription, sign in here.)